[Terez]

Tsundoku, on 11 December 2015 - 07:10 AM, said:

Speaking of Rubio, another link in the Vox article linked by Terez above talks about "dark money". Rubio is in really, really deep to some vested interests he is much too close to if he wins the Presidency. So who are they, what do they want, and how does he pay them back if/when he loses?

If he loses, he doesn't have to do anything for them. For these "vested interests", as you call them, political contribution is like gambling. If you lose, you're SOL. Even if you win, you can't really count on anything; how much quo depends on the candidate.

[Sergeant Grimm]

Sorry if I intrude, but I am not familiar with the american election system. How does one become a candidate for a party ? WHo can vote during those primary elections ?
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask such questions, but from where I sit it makes no sense how a person like Trump can even get this high in the polls. I may be mistaken, but what he has said during these election would get you before a court where I live.

[Terez]

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 08:32 AM, said:

Sorry if I intrude, but I am not familiar with the american election system. How does one become a candidate for a party ? Who can vote during those primary elections ?

There's a process to becoming a presidential candidate, and it is different from the elections for other offices in many ways, but it's still a popular vote, and the popular vote usually decides the nominee for each party.

As for who can run for president, it helps to have national name recognition, and it helps to have money. You can spend money to get name recognition, but if you already have it you can get more money. The period beginning about a year before primaries start is called the "invisible primary", and candidates typically announce they're running in the spring and summer of pre-election year after they've secured the backing of enough money people to make them viable on the national stage. After that, candidates run ads (nationally and in "early states", see below), the media tracks the money and the polls, and several more candidates will drop out before the end of the year (as we've seen this year with Walker and Perry and Jindal).

Each candidate has to get enough petition signatures to get on primary ballots in each state, and the deadlines begin in November or December. Then, starting in early February of election year, states hold their primaries/caucuses one by one, though as it goes on you have more states holding primaries on the same day. So it works out that the first states are the most important ones because they act as bellwethers, indicating whether a candidate should stay in the race or drop out. There are primaries in June but usually by then it's already clear who will be the nominee because someone has secured a majority of delegates.

The winner of each state's primary/caucus gets either all of that state's delegates (typical) or a proportional number of the delegates. These delegates are actual people who actually show up to the party's national convention and physically vote. Delegates are faith-bound to vote for the person they were appointed to represent; "faithless electors" are pretty rare. Usually delegates are active party people who volunteer so that they can have the honor of voting for their favored candidate in person. Ron Paul ran a campaign in 2012 to steal electoral votes by planting faithless electors in the delegate pool. His support group was small but enthusiastic, so he (legally) tried to use that to his advantage, but I don't think that has happened before in my lifetime (I was born in 1978).

[PS: as I said below, and have now deleted to avoid redundancy, this is arcane stuff. I don't really understand it. Usually it doesn't come up, so it's not worth the effort to figure out how this stuff works in different parties and different states, especially since they're changing it all the time. The electoral college for the general election is similar and it's easy to get it confused with the party conventions; apparently "faithless delegates" are not even as common as "faithless electors" in the electoral college.]

As I understand it, if no candidate gets an outright majority of delegates, the popular vote is thrown out the window and the delegates reconsider their votes in an effort to produce a majority candidate. That is called a brokered convention, and we haven't had one in a long time. Perhaps the plurality winner will simply pick up more votes and become the majority winner. If Trump goes into the convention with a plurality, though, I wouldn't count on him coming out the winner at all.

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 08:32 AM, said:

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask such questions, but from where I sit it makes no sense how a person like Trump can even get this high in the polls. I may be mistaken, but what he has said during these election would get you before a court where I live.

That's because you don't have freedom in your country. It's not very big so we could probably liberate you if you like. Do you have ISIS? (Please don't be Grimm; I read too much Polandball.)

This post has been edited by Terez: 11 December 2015 - 09:37 AM

[worry]

I'm actually seeing a lot of brokered convention talk in the MSM so your prediction might come true. One of the big reasons it's so rare is that the candidate dropout rate accelerates so much after those bellwether primaries you mention, and it's still pretty unlikely I guess, but I wonder if the very introduction of its possibility into the air will actually slow down the dropouts enough to make it happen, in a feedback loop.

[Sergeant Grimm]

Thanks Terez for the explanation, it was very well put and understandable. It's not every day I've got someone who can explain the american election system to me. But how is this a popular election, if you don't elect the candidate directly ? Also the notion of 'faith bound', does that mean they are not obligated to keep to the promised vote, or does this mean they are obligated to vote for what they said ? Also, it seems that finally, it's the one with the most support and the most financial means who wins (mind you that is always the case, but in Luxemburg, as an example, it doesn't sem to be so obviously displayed ) ? Also, in an other context, is there a serious third party in these kinds of election (maybe liberals, social-democrats, socialist, or what ever ?)?

And nowto my country, the glorious and eternal Grand-Duchy of Luxemburg, wich will never bow to ISIS-goatshaggers, we very kindly decline your proposition for liberation. Having seen how happy Irak is, the joyous live in Afghanistan, the pleasant smell of Napalm in Vietnam, I would just like to remind you, that you already liberated us back in 1944 (again in 1945 by the way) . And who doesn't love the Polandball

[Terez]

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

Thanks Terez for the explanation, it was very well put and understandable. It's not every day I've got someone who can explain the american election system to me.

The joys of the English-speaking interwebz.

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

But how is this a popular election, if you don't elect the candidate directly ?

Because the popular vote usually does determine the election. W's 2000 election is the only exception in living memory for the electoral college. As for the conventions where the parties nominate their candidates, it hasn't happened since 1952.

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

Also the notion of 'faith bound', does that mean they are not obligated to keep to the promised vote, or does this mean they are obligated to vote for what they said ?

My understanding (again, this is arcane) is that the laws vary by state, and they're different depending on whether it's the electoral college in November or the party conventions a few months earlier, and the parties have different rules too. It seems that the GOP managed to squash Ron Paul's efforts to claim more delegates (using arcane state laws) but I'd have to research the details to explain them.

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 09:45 AM, said:

Also, in an other context, is there a serious third party in these kinds of election (maybe liberals, social-democrats, socialist, or what ever ?)?

No, we haven't had a serious third party in a long time. The two-party system is so baked into our legislative process that Independents are obliged to "caucus" with either the Republicans or the Democrats. We would have to do away with FPTP in general elections for it to even be worth it to start reconsidering those legislative norms.

[Sergeant Grimm]

Thanks again Terez, this turns out to be very educating. But my assessment of this system is that it lacks transparency (how are you supposed to know the system if it may vary from state to state, and a very great part of the processes you described is beeing held out side public scrutiny). Also I misunderstood your use of 'popular'. For me (and I'm very much european in that) a popular election is one with an universal and direct suffrage. Also, don't you feel like this inherent bi-partism does limit your capacity as a voter to fully express your opinion ? For what are the ideological differencies between republicans and democrats ?

[Terez]

worry, on 11 December 2015 - 09:38 AM, said:

I'm actually seeing a lot of brokered convention talk in the MSM so your prediction might come true. One of the big reasons it's so rare is that the candidate dropout rate accelerates so much after those bellwether primaries you mention, and it's still pretty unlikely I guess, but I wonder if the very introduction of its possibility into the air will actually slow down the dropouts enough to make it happen, in a feedback loop.

I haven't been paying attention, so I googled and a 538 article came up. I don't really care what anyone else has to say about it, so that's good.

538 said:

micah: Alright, to close, assign probabilities to each of these eventualities. A contested convention would:

1. Result in a Trump nomination.
2. Result in an establishment nominee who is currently running.
3. Result in an establishment nominee not currently running.
4. Result in Ted Cruz.
5. Destroy the GOP.
6. Other.

natesilver: No. 5 doesn't seem to be mutually exclusive with the other choices.

micah: That's on purpose.

natesilver:
1. 10 percent
2. 35 percent
3. 20 percent
4. 35 percent

harry:
1. 20 percent
2. 40 percent
3. 10 percent
4. 25 percent
5. 5 percent
6. 5 percent

clare.malone:
1. I think there is no chance of this
2. I give this a 70 percent probability
3. I don't think this happens, either
4. 30 percent chance
5. destroy the GOP—50 percent

natesilver: It depends greatly on how close Trump is to winning the nomination. If he comes in with only one-third of the delegates, there's no way that he gets the nomination. But if he's at 45 percent, and the convention is a last-ditch effort to prevent him from getting to 51 percent, maybe he still gets over the top.
[...] The brokered convention would be the symptom of [the GOP being destroyed] and not the cause. In terms of the party’s long-run future: a brokered convention is bad, but a considerably less disastrous outcome for the GOP than a Trump nomination.

[D'rek]

Do you think there's a possible scenario where it does go to a brokered convention, the fallout ends up splitting/breaking the GOP, and as a result the Dems do break the 12-year rule *and* the right-wing splinter+resurgence eventually results in a non-two-party system?!

[Obdigore]

D, on 11 December 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

Do you think there's a possible scenario where it does go to a brokered convention, the fallout ends up splitting/breaking the GOP, and as a result the Dems do break the 12-year rule *and* the right-wing splinter+resurgence eventually results in a non-two-party system?!

If the GOP goes into a brokered convention, which is the most likely scenario right now, they are already broken.

I don't believe teh GOP, even though this is a 'swinging pendulum' year, will have the Presidency, as they have moved further right while the voting populace has moved to the left.

However, the US federal political system supports a 'large-tent' two party system by the way it was designed. If there is not a system redesign, with the GOP gone, the Democratic party will splinter as well and new parties will coalesce, be absorbed to get power, and we will have a new two party system. However that new system might have very different ideological lines than current one.

[Morgoth]

the 12 year rule is just a thing invented by people who do not understand basic statistics.

[Terez]

Care to elaborate?

[Terez]

Going back for some posts, now that I have the time to address them semi-properly.

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

Thanks again Terez, this turns out to be very educating. But my assessment of this system is that it lacks transparency (how are you supposed to know the system if it may vary from state to state, and a very great part of the processes you described is beeing held out side public scrutiny).

There is not much that is done outside public scrutiny aside from the "invisible primary" where donors are courted. The conventions are not impossible to get into and they're covered by the press. The lack of transparency that comes from the complex and varying laws...it's unfortunate but usually not a huge deal, except when it comes to discriminatory election laws. One usually only needs to know the laws for one's own state. Like, some states require you to present ID when voting; some don't. Some states require you to register to vote with a party affiliation (even if it's Independent); some don't. Some states allow same-day voter registration; some have a 30-day waiting period; etc.

It only really gets intolerably complicated for presidential candidates because they are the only candidates that have to know the laws for every state. But that's what their legal staff is for. It doesn't matter much to the voters; state law surprises rarely change the outcome of elections.

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

Also I misunderstood your use of 'popular'. For me (and I'm very much european in that) a popular election is one with an universal and direct suffrage.

That's how it works for us most of the time, but by "popular vote" I'm just referring to the actual vote, not whether it decides the election. It usually does, sort of. There are various factors affecting the directness of the vote; for example in Congressional elections, gerrymandering can predetermine party representation in Congress to a significant degree. Right now, gerrymandering heavily favors Republicans in particular and incumbents more broadly (because it serves the purposes of Republicans to crowd as many Democrats into one district as possible, thereby creating a "safe" district for any Democrat who wants job security, and sometimes that accounts for the silence of the opposition party when gerrymandering is going on).

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

Also, don't you feel like this inherent bi-partism does limit your capacity as a voter to fully express your opinion ?

It does, but parliamentary systems aren't inherently all that much better. There are pros and cons in all systems. I don't like the two party system much, but in order to fix it we'd need to change a lot of things.

Sergeant Grimm, on 11 December 2015 - 10:31 AM, said:

For what are the ideological differencies between republicans and democrats ?

Not sure what you're asking here. Assuming the obvious, the Republicans are social conservatives (religious, anti-abortion/gay/whatever, pro-gun, etc.) and fiscal liberals (free trade, anti-regulation, anti-tax etc.). Democrats are social liberals (secular, etc.) and traditionally, fiscally democratic-socialist. The Democratic party took a turn toward fiscal liberalism in the Clinton era because Democrats were having a hard time getting the money needed to win presidential elections. Or, that was assumed to be the reason why they lost three presidential elections in a row.

Obdigore, on 11 December 2015 - 10:34 PM, said:

D, on 11 December 2015 - 03:29 PM, said:

Do you think there's a possible scenario where it does go to a brokered convention, the fallout ends up splitting/breaking the GOP, and as a result the Dems do break the 12-year rule *and* the right-wing splinter+resurgence eventually results in a non-two-party system?!

If the GOP goes into a brokered convention, which is the most likely scenario right now, they are already broken.

I don't believe teh GOP, even though this is a 'swinging pendulum' year, will have the Presidency, as they have moved further right while the voting populace has moved to the left.

However, the US federal political system supports a 'large-tent' two party system by the way it was designed. If there is not a system redesign, with the GOP gone, the Democratic party will splinter as well and new parties will coalesce, be absorbed to get power, and we will have a new two party system. However that new system might have very different ideological lines than current one.

This has seemed to be the most likely outcome for a long time, but both parties are really reluctant to splinter because whichever splinters first will give the competition an immediate advantage. If the two wings of the GOP can't get behind a presidential candidate, though, it will happen, and it's been shaping up to happen for a long time now. There was a lot of resistance to McCain and Romney because they were safe Establishment types. Trump is the embodiment of that resistance.

When the parties do splinter, it won't be a crash-bang overnight thing. It might take decades to sort out. The GOP has only just finished ousting the Dixiecrats from the southern states, and that took 50 years.

[HoosierDaddy]

Republican Primary:

Iowa: Cruz

New Hampshire: Trump

South Carolina: Trump

Nevada: Bush, unless Cruz or Trump builds a strong ground game
Alabama: Cruz
Alaska: .... Who fucking knows. These people elected Palin.
Arkansas: Huckabee if still in, otherwise:Cruz
Colorado: ?
Georgia: Cruz
Mass: Trump
Minn: ?

Through part of March. This is going to be a shit show for the Republicans who can't afford Trump as their Nominee. Cruz is bad enough, but damn.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 12 December 2015 - 07:36 AM, said:

Alabama: Cruz

There has only been one poll in Alabama, and Cruz did not show well. Judging by MS social media, I would expect Trump to win in Alabama. (They're just like MS, but backwards.) Unless, of course, he suffers some kind of setback before March 1.

[HoosierDaddy]

Polls don't matter in this situation. Cruz will win.

[Terez]

Are you prepared to bet your avatar?

On that 538 article earlier...I found Nate Silver's estimation for option 3 to be surprisingly high.

538 said:

micah: Alright, to close, assign probabilities to each of these eventualities. A contested convention would:

1. Result in a Trump nomination.
2. Result in an establishment nominee who is currently running.
3. Result in an establishment nominee not currently running.
4. Result in Ted Cruz.
5. Destroy the GOP.
6. Other.

natesilver:
1. 10 percent
2. 35 percent
3. 20 percent
4. 35 percent

harry:
1. 20 percent
2. 40 percent
3. 10 percent
4. 25 percent
5. 5 percent
6. 5 percent

clare.malone:
1. I think there is no chance of this
2. I give this a 70 percent probability
3. I don't think this happens, either
4. 30 percent chance
5. destroy the GOP—50 percent

My gut was to go with Clare on option 1, but I can concede that Nate's 10% is statistically safer, and Harry's 20% is justifiable, and if Trump does win, we'll have been seeing updated estimates from them with more even odds; these guys know what they're doing. But this far out, it's difficult to see the Establishment passing up any opportunity to stop Trump, because like Silver said, that's undeniably the worst option possible for them at this point, and it definitely would herald the end of the GOP as we know it.

But option 3. My gut is again to go with Clare at 0%, but Silver put option 3 at 20%, an even higher probability than a Trump win. Maybe that only speaks to his well-founded certainty that the GOP would do anything to avoid a Trump nomination, and 20% is pretty low (as he said elsewhere in the article), but he gives the rest (35-35) to two options that I feel 1) shouldn't be equal, and 2) are both significantly more likely than option 3.

But apparently Silver thinks more of Cruz's chances than I do. Cruz has definitely set himself up to be the anti-Establishment yet Ivy-educated alternative to Trump once he collapses in a pile of his own excrement. Cruz will be looking clean and pretty at that point, and still attractive to Trump supporters. This has been obvious all along, but Cruz's chances have long been marginalized because the Establishment hates him. Which brings us back to the same brokered convention scenario, perhaps with Trump out of the game but maybe still holding a lot of delegates, and the Establishment isn't quite as desperate.

Silver also has his proverbial money on Rubio, but according to the numbers he gave here, he's playing for long odds on that bet, a dead heat with Cruz.

Of course, this is apparently a chat transcript, so the numbers were kind of off the cuff and maybe he would do it differently if he had more time to think about it. He explains here why he puts the odds of a brokered convention happening in the first place at 20%:

538 said:

natesilver: So where everyone goes to Cleveland genuinely unsure about who the nominee is? In August, I put the chances of that at 10 percent. Now, I'd probably put them at about 20 percent.

[...]

harry: All right, so here's my thing: We are 53 days from the Iowa caucuses. Until we actually see how the primary will develop, I can't say 20 percent. I can say 10 percent. I can see it. It can happen. But the problem is that I've heard this song and dance before. In fact, I found seven of the 11 open primaries since 1984 had at least some talk of a contested convention. [...]

[...]


natesilver: I dunno, 20 percent is not that high.

harry: Not as high as the folks at High Times, but to me it's fairly high. The Eagles had only a 12 percent shot to beat the Patriots last week, according to our Elo ratings. I put a contested convention on about the same plane as that.

[...]


micah: Someone explain to me how a contested convention would come about.

natesilver: That part's easy, or easy enough.

clare.malone: Trump just keeps trucking, right? Gaining steam.

micah: And Trump is gaining steam.

natesilver: It requires two basic ingredients. First, Trump stays in the race, but hits a ceiling in his support. Anywhere from 20 percent to 35 percent of the vote or so would do. Second, the GOP establishment is torn between resigning itself to Ted Cruz and some other choice, most likely Marco Rubio.

Both of those things seem … entirely possible to me.

So, 20% is "... entirely possible". And a safe estimate this far out. As I said before, we might actually start to see Trump nosedive before too long based on his recent comments. But maybe not. If serious talk of him being barred from entering Israel doesn't tank him, though, probably nothing will, unless there's a Trump sex tape out there somewhere.

[HoosierDaddy]

"We can't afford to be politically correct." Is a dog whistle and why you hear all those rednecks cheering. It means "We get to be racist and sexist and all sorts of awful shit again yeeehawww!"

[Maark Abbott]

HoosierDaddy, on 12 December 2015 - 06:49 PM, said:

"We can't afford to be politically correct." Is a dog whistle and why you hear all those rednecks cheering. It means "We get to be racist and sexist and all sorts of awful shit again yeeehawww!"

I did rather enjoy Twitter's collective response to him describing the utterly vile Katie Hopkins as a 'respected columnist'. Doesn't really surprise me that he'd consider her as such, mind.

[Mentalist]

Question: with Republicans controlling both the Senate and Congress right now, doesn't that usually push the swing votes to the Democrats, regardless of the nominees? I was under the impression that was one of the "checks and balances" that the system developed.