Republican POTUS nominee will be...

[Bertt 0]

That's the problem for Bachmann. Rightly or wrongly, she reminds people too much of Palin. I don't see Gingrich making a comeback, not because of what he said on Meet the Press, but because of the way he backtracked afterwards.
My guess right now would be Pawlenty/Cain, but I wouldn't put any money on it.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[scruffy 0]

making these kind of predictions are akin to throwing darts and seeing who's picture it lands on...but if I had to make an attempt at an educated guess I would say Romney/Huntsman

It has been over three and a half decades since there was a real challenge in Republican primaries (Reagan nearly upsetting Goldwater in 1976). The Republican party is the party of preordained candidates and Romney is next in line, and that should be all there is to it. Huntsman was an amazing Governor and his FP experience would follow the model of the past 2 presidents. The only variable here is the tea party, which proved last year it shouldn't be taken lightly, and could upset the status quo. In which case, maybe Cain, Bachmann, Pawlenty or (god-forbid) Palin has a shot at one of the two hotseats. I see all four of those on pretty equal footing right now if that's the case, lets see what happens in new hampshire in a few weeks.

Paul is a sideshow, having a rabid cult following does not win elections (but it does lose them for others, Perot)

Gingrich is done, just fucking done. He didn't give himself a chance for the media to torpedo his campaign before he committed seppuku.

Huckabee and Santorum are moving more towards running, I don't really know how I feel about either of their chances

Gary Johnson was kind of a curiosity, had a decent right libertarian message...just didn't come off as presidential.

I don't think i missed anyone of consequence, unless Roemer or Christie change their mind.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Paul is a sideshow, having a rabid cult following does not win elections (but it does lose them for others, Perot)

Perot stole votes fairly evenly from both parties. He was merely a sideshow, not a Ralph Nader type.

Paul's influence is much like that of the Libertarians. People like the general premise, but the deeper they look, the less likely they are to actually vote that way.

[scruffy 0]

I can dig that, I'm just wary about Paul actually making an independent bid after he fails to get the nomination and if that would have a real effect on the election.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[quade 3]

Quote

I can dig that, I'm just wary about Paul actually making an independent bid after he fails to get the nomination and if that would have a real effect on the election.

I see him at the very most capturing maybe 15% (more likely half that) of the popular and possibly 1% of the electoral.

It's certainly a problem for the GOP if he went Indy. I don't see it being a negative at all for Obama.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I can dig that, I'm just wary about Paul actually making an independent bid after he fails to get the nomination and if that would have a real effect on the election.

I see him at the very most capturing maybe 15% of the popular and possibly 1% of the electoral.

It's certainly a problem for the GOP if he went Indy. I don't see it being a negative at all for Obama.

How does he capture any EC votes?

Yes, i see him killing the GOP in the battleground states like Florida, just like Nader. 5% is a lot to lose in FL or OH.

[quade 3]

Quote

How does he capture any EC votes?

Not all states are all or nothing. Most are, but not all.

I'm leaving open the possibility of a wild upset victory, enough to actually get on the board, for him in one of those.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[scruffy 0]

I was just referring to a spoiler effect, but that would be crazy if a third man actually got some EC votes considering it's been like 170 years since that's happened

Peace, love and hoppiness

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

How does he capture any EC votes?

Not all states are all or nothing. Most are, but not all.

I'm leaving open the possibility of a wild upset victory, enough to actually get on the board, for him in one of those.

Maine and Nebraska still use a winner take all method, just by congressional district instead of the entire state. One state has two districts, the other has 3. Not that different from the entire state. Obama did claim one out of Nebraska, but he was a primary candidate, not a third party, and he did actually win overall.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

How does he capture any EC votes?

Not all states are all or nothing. Most are, but not all.

I'm leaving open the possibility of a wild upset victory, enough to actually get on the board, for him in one of those.

Maine and Nebraska still use a winner take all method, just by congressional district instead of the entire state. One state has two districts, the other has 3. Not that different from the entire state. Obama did claim one out of Nebraska, but he was a primary candidate, not a third party, and he did actually win overall.

And there are also "faithless electors."

The EC is just an stupid and outdated method of doing things.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Too bad Ron Paul is unelectable.

I'd wager that if everyone that said, "I'd vote for him if he could win" actually voted for him, he'd be quite electable -- or at least have a good run at it. Perception is everything, sadly. That being said, I imagine I'll be voting for him in the primaries at least.

The problem is, there's no way you could ever get "everyone" to say that. He's perceived as a loony because he's proposed a LOT of loony ideas.

While -some- of what he has to say might be interesting, it's offset and [url]shadowed by all the looniness of the things he's said.

Not saying I agree. I am a moderate/liberal who registered Republican and voted for Paul in the last primaries. One other problem with Ron Paul is that he is anti-establishment, so you get other, disreputable groups who are anti-establishment who grab on to his coattails, and then he gets associated with them. I am talking about white supremacist groups and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And there are also "faithless electors."

The EC is just an stupid and outdated method of doing things.

never been a faithless elector when it mattered.

as for making changes to 200+ year institutions - beware the consequences.

[quade 3]

Quote

as for making changes to 200+ year institutions - beware the consequences.

It made some sense 200 years ago when it was difficult for individuals to get to places and for vote totals to be communicated efficiently. Today, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Additionally, the "winner take all" nature of some states gives a sense of "mandate" to elections when sometimes there clearly is none. In fact, it divides the country into Red States vs Blue States, when a LOT of the country is a lovely shade of purple.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Perot stole votes fairly evenly from both parties.

I disagree; I think he cost Bush-Sr. his re-election in 1992. Perot appealed to independent-minded fiscal conservatives, and that demographic skews more GOP than Democrat. Personally, I think about 75% of Perot's votes would have gone for Bush; but for the sake of discussion, even if only 2/3 of his votes were diverted from Bush, Bush still would have won had Perot not run.

Here's how I figure it:

Here are the 1992 election results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_presidential_election

Clinton - 44,909,806
Bush - 39,104,550
Perot - 19,743,821

If 2/3 of Perot's votes had been added to Bush's tally, and 1/3 if his votes had been added to Clinton's, the popular election result would have been roughly:
- Bush - 52,267,097
- Clinton - 51,491,079
.... thus giving the election to Bush, by a very slim margin, unless Clinton managed to pull it off by claiming more-important Electoral College votes, as Bush-Jr did in 2000.

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Well, they chose Palin.

Which is why they won't do it again. Remember, the VP is picked by the candidate, not the primary voters.

Quote

I don't think the GOP could survive the about-face on Obamacare. To pull it off they'd have to radically change their perspective on government-mandated healthcare, and that would lose them a _lot_ of their base.

I think they'll frame it as a states' rights issue. Romney will argue (as he's already done) that was was right for Mass. may not be right for Miss. and federal.gov shouldn't have a say in the matter. He's also starting to work in some wiggle room between himself and Romneycare because he knows how tough it will be to get over that hump. I think the GOP base will fall in line.

Wishful thinking. The mandate is what kills him. Most GOPers don't think states should have any more authority to force you to buy health insurance than should the federal government.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Too bad Ron Paul is unelectable. He might make a good president. Also a lot of problems with him and his philosophy, but it would be a worthwhile experiment (IMO.)

+1

I'd back him more than any of the others. He's less a politician, more a public servant. (note that less does not imply zero)

But yeah... never going to happen.

--
Rob

[doi 0]

... Whomever the oligarchs decide is most appropriate at the time.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Perot stole votes fairly evenly from both parties.

I disagree; I think he cost Bush-Sr. his re-election in 1992. Perot appealed to independent-minded fiscal conservatives, and that demographic skews more GOP than Democrat. Personally, I think about 75% of Perot's votes would have gone for Bush; but for the sake of discussion, even if only 2/3 of his votes were diverted from Bush, Bush still would have won had Perot not run.

Here's how I figure it:

So was this all based on gut feelings, or actual data?

I was speaking based on the conclusions of the Survey Research Center at Berkeley, which does one of the most extensive post election pollings to generate a lot of sample data for any voter descriptor you can imagine.

Wiki's take:
The effect of Ross Perot's candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,[25] but of the voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important," two thirds voted for Bill Clinton.[26] A mathematical look at the voting numbers reveals that Bush would have had to win 12.2% of Perot's 18.8% of the vote, 65% of Perot's support base, to earn a majority of the vote, and would have needed to win nearly every state Clinton won by less than five percentage points.[27] Furthermore, his best results were in states that strongly favored either Clinton or Bush, or carried few electoral votes, limiting his real electoral impact for either candidate. Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. NAFTA played a role in Perot's support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot button social issues.[28][29]

The citation give is from http://archive.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm which concludes that without Perot, the EC vote might have been tighter, but Clinton still wins.

The bolded section sums up my take on Perot. I mean, if you still voted for the guy after the Cuban plot on his lesbian daughter wedding story, clearly you weren't voting with your brain.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

as for making changes to 200+ year institutions - beware the consequences.

It made some sense 200 years ago when it was difficult for individuals to get to places and for vote totals to be communicated efficiently. Today, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

It wasn't a question of sense or not, though there still is a lot of sense behind it. If you worry about Diebold vote fraud giving a state like Ohio to the Republicans, you should be even more worried that localized fraud can determine the entire election.

But what I pointed out is that fucking with things that are working just fine can backfire. In the 90s voters were convinced that term limits would give us short term legislators who would think for the greater good, not their own self interest. This has completely failed, having achieved the opposite result.

The rural population deserves and needs representation in DC. A popular vote election will diminish it. That's an obvious consequence. The unknown ones are scarier.

[quade 3]

Quote

The rural population deserves and needs representation in DC. A popular vote election will diminish it.

Please explain this because to me it simply makes no sense whatsoever.

The "rural" population's vote shouldn't count any more or less than any other individual's vote. Are you suggesting it should?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The rural population deserves and needs representation in DC. A popular vote election will diminish it.

Please explain this because to me it simply makes no sense whatsoever.

The "rural" population's vote shouldn't count any more or less than any other individual's vote. Are you suggesting it should?

If people in rural areas can't get out to the polling places today, then currently their vote doesn't count for anything because it's being over represented by those that can, but ONLY in their local areas.

why do you think Eureka and the rest of northern California would like to be a separate state from LA (and San Francisco, even though SF nuts don't realize it)?

Sacramento ignores them. Ignores the I-395 corridor as well. Their votes may be worth just as much as your's, but all of them in a suburb. It's not worth spending time on, when there are 30M urban dwellers in the state.

If none of this makes sense to you....wow. Or are you just trying to argue a point poorly?

[quade 3]

No, no, no. You've missed my point completely.

There are 538 electors. Each state gets as many as the congressional districts it has plus two (representing the number of senators).

States with smaller populations have a disproportionally large amount of electors since even if a state only had a population of 3 it would get 3 EC votes; 1 for the congressional district plus 2 (just like the senators). In this extreme hypothetical example, the ratio of population to EC voted would be 1:1.

Alaska's population is about 698,473, so each of its 3 EC votes represents 232,824 people.

The power of the EC votes apportioned due to the senators is lowered dramatically as the population of a state grows, so the most populous state barely receives any benefit from those 2 senator apportioned EC votes compared to states with MUCH smaller populations.

California has a population of about 37 million so each of its 55 EC votes represents 672,727 people.

Each EC vote from Alaska counts for more than TWICE what a vote from California does in terms of actual voters represented.

See the issue?

What you've suggested is that this is not only "fair" but justified based on the "rural" nature of some states.

I can't justify it at all.

Please tell me why a vote from a citizen of a small population state should count more than a vote from a citizen from a large population state.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Please tell me why a vote from a citizen of a small population state should count more than a vote from a citizen from a large population state.

because we're a republic of 50 states.

because the larger states get the upper hand in the House.

because it's worked for 220some years now. Few nations on earth have enjoyed the same governmental structure that long.

-----
it all really comes down to 2000, and being angry that Bush won, by the rules in play. (and that's exactly what happened, Florida craziness included). Had the rules been a simple democracy, the results would have been different. Under the current rules, Bush doesn't campaign in California, Gore doesn't campaign in Texas. Change that, and so will their behavior. As will the voting likelihood of citizens in clearly partisan states.

Some of the changes are probably positive ones. Others are not. And others are unpredictable.

But since I feel confident in thinking that you would agree that corporate money and TV in general has too much influence in an election, why would you want to change the system to increase this influence?

[quade 3]

Quote

it all really comes down to 2000, and being angry that Bush won, by the rules in play.

No, it doesn't. Stop having a persecution complex about that. Not everything is about Bush.

It goes back to the 1968 election and the disparity between the popular and EC result. Which is why, at that time, there was a movement to amend the US Constitution to do away with the EC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)#The_Bayh-Celler_Amendment

It had HUGE support in the early stages of it, being approved by a vote of 339 to 70 by the Senate, but at the final moment some of the smaller states figured out they had a disproportionate amount of power by maintaining the status quo, filibustered it and eventually got it to die.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,623]

When you do the math properly you will see that your belief in the properties of the EC is quite naive.
www.math.temple.edu/~cow/bpi.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.