This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

2016 Presidential Election

15657596162109

Comments

  • Greg said:

    Cremlian said:

    3 out of 4 people who identify as being part of the LGBTQI community voted for Obama."

    Wait what does I stand for?
    Intersex I believe.
  • Greg said:

    Cremlian said:

    3 out of 4 people who identify as being part of the LGBTQI community voted for Obama."

    Wait what does I stand for?
    Intersex.
  • The full acronym from back at RITGA was LGBTQQIA: queer questioning intersex asexual
  • edited March 2016
    Raithnor said:

    Cremlian said:

    nah, the GOP break up will cause the GOP/Conservative party to win very few states. The Democrats would dominate and the Electoral college will be a near clean sweep. the D's have too many states that are pretty much sewed up.

    If they can get 38 votes for themselves and let Trump and Hillary split the remainder no one has 270. They have 18 if they can take Ohio, Virginia could be another 13. All they'd need would be another 7 votes minimum and no one can get majority. Meanwhile all they need to do is focus on three or four states, while the other two campaigns need to run a much wider ground game.

    Scott,

    I know you've played a lot of the political board games that have come out, what would be the best one to model this? Three-way race, third guy wins if he can get 38 and the other two can't get 270.
    Trump would have to carry FL, OH, NC, VA, and PA. Romney could carry UT, WY, OK, and maybe ID without tipping the result to Clinton.

    This is assuming Romney only campaigned in those four states, and he roughly splits the Republican vote with Trump.

    The final result looks like this:

    image
    Post edited by PyreKing on
  • Before you continue playing this game, you should read up on the details of the electoral college and a contingent election by the house and senate.

    First, House representatives do not get individual votes: each state delegation gets a single vote. Second, the winner must have a majority (26) of those votes. Third, unless 2/3 of them even show up, they can't vote.

    If they don't vote, then the Speaker of the House becomes the president until they do.

    The VP is separately selected by the Senate, with different rules.

    Denying a majority to throw the election to the house has been tried vanishingly few times in the past, and it's always failed. The most likely result is a mostly Democratic sweep of states' electors.
  • edited March 2016
    A more thorough breakdown of how Trump keeps toeing the line between running a campaign and breaking the law by threatening opponents with violence.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/16/donald-trump-just-threatened-more-violence-only-this-time-its-directed-at-the-gop/#
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • Rym said:

    Before you continue playing this game, you should read up on the details of the electoral college and a contingent election by the house and senate.

    First, House representatives do not get individual votes: each state delegation gets a single vote. Second, the winner must have a majority (26) of those votes. Third, unless 2/3 of them even show up, they can't vote.

    If they don't vote, then the Speaker of the House becomes the president until they do.

    Figure no sitting House Republican wants Trump in office. Going by each state's delegation to the House the current totals are 34-13-3 (New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Maine all have evenly split delegations) More than enough for Republicans to put whoever they want in office.

    If they can't get a vote then Paul Ryan becomes acting-President.

    The Senate is even worse because they have a one-senator, one-vote rule and the GOP already runs the Senate.

    It's a very fine needle that has to be thread, but the alternatives probably seem horrific to the GOP and they could dump a lot of money in 4 states if they're not going to fund Trump's campaign. It's never been done before, because you've never had a case where the nominee of a party was universally reviled by the party of the sitting congress.
  • Greg said:

    Wait what does I stand for?

    Intersex, most likely.
  • Looking at some of the recent polls out of AZ and NY, Sanders will be lucky to get 40% of the vote let alone the 60% he needs to even be competitive. Wish his campaign would see the writing on the wall instead of sucking donations... But I guess his staff needs to work.
  • Okay, I take it back. My Facebook feed now seems to be about 20% about how Bernie Sanders still can get the nomination, and how the news and press are ignoring it.
  • Today on Facebook an example,
    "I am working for it Scott. I switched my voter registration from independent to democratic for this election cycle Waaay back. I'm glad your early success in primarily Red states that go Republican in the general election make you feel like Hilary is doing well. However, looking at the states coming up and how they poll, they lean even more heavily toward Bernie than anything that we have seen to date. And this is exactly what we saw against Obama in 2008. Hilary is only 300 delegates ahead in a race with 2103 delegates remaining. In the end she still needs to get 1236 more delegates to have enough. He needs 1553 to be certain of victory. Neither is out of reach. And this contest is VERY likely to go until California."

    derp

    to quote one or two.
  • Of course, the important difference is that Obama was up 100 delegates at this point in 2008, as opposed to down 300...
  • Eh. The "purple" "moderates" are basically conservatives or cowards. On many issues, especially social ones, compromise is not substantially less harmful than letting the GOP have its way.
  • It's more it comes down to how much do you let your ideology get in the way of actually leading. I tend to care more about governing and leadership than ideological purity while Tea Party Republicans want complete and utter Purity to their ideology.
  • I think purples largely don't vote because they see the two parties as equally good and equally bad, which is terrifying in its own right.
  • I just used one of the videos from that Cracked series as my Thing of the Day.
  • A frighteningly accurate description of the fallout from the McCain campaign.

  • That is not a Twitter mashup I was expecting.
  • Um...did anyone else know that there were really shady dealings between the Clinton Foundation, a Canadian company that handled Uranium, and Putin?
    This is a really, really peculiar set of circumstances and smells really fishy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
  • It definitely smells pretty dirty, but I'm holding on any actual condemnation until someone comes forward with some actual evidence of wrongdoing.

    Plus, as a reminder, Clinton foundation's finances are published yearly, as is required of a 501c nonprofit. Might be worth a look.
  • it's also from last year so you should be able to get all that info... being that article is from 2015 and the stuff they are talking about is 2013....
  • Considering the decades-long smear campaign waged by the GOP against the Clintons (especially Hillary), I take any "conspiracy" or wrongdoing allegations with a barrel of salt. Especially if they're old and there was no followup.
  • The absence of followup, charges, or further misconduct is part of the conspiracy.

    Are you new here?
  • The absence of followup, charges, or further misconduct is part of the conspiracy.

    Are you new here?

    You sure know a lot about how to run a conspiracy...

    <_<

    >_>

  • How do you know that I know how to run a conspiracy? Only a Communist would know that.
  • Cremlian said:

    it's also from last year so you should be able to get all that info... being that article is from 2015 and the stuff they are talking about is 2013....

    Aw man, caught short, I normally catch that sort of thing. Skepticism to eleven, then.
  • Yeah, it seemed (seems) like there are a lot of coincidences, but there either isn't any connection to them, or OBUMMER'S LIZARD PEOPLE SLEEPER AGENTS ARE HIDING THE EVIDENCE.... PETE.
Sign In or Register to comment.