| |
Discussion: U.S. Election 2016: Primary Season
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 10,242
|
Yeah, the Florida debate did hurt Bernie IMO.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by King Maxx
One of the biggest misconceptions is that debates and town halls hurt her. Had it not been for the Florida debate and those town halls I doubt she would've won all 5 states that night.
|
She does especially well in town halls. I'd be entirely okay with a town hall, but a debate is uninteresting to me at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
We all know Hillary's record at this point, and Bernie is repeating himself every debate. It's only hurting him at this point because he is more prone to backlash and negative exposures. For example, the Fidel Castro comment.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Town halls are more boring than debates. They might as well just film the candidates speaking for an hour each. Same results. Candidates can say whatever the hell they want, because the other candidate isn't there to call them on their ********, and the moderator will only do it so much. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 7,989
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
Town halls are more boring than debates. They might as well just film the candidates speaking for an hour each. Same results. Candidates can say whatever the hell they want, because the other candidate isn't there to call them on their ********, and the moderator will only do it so much. |
The interaction with the audience is what makes Town Halls interesting, though.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,474
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
No, it's not the electoral college's fault. (Sorry, I know this is a really late reply, but I just saw this.) If it were the Electoral College's fault then congress wouldn't be split by two parties. Neither would state legislatures or governors' mansions.
Winner taker all (also known as first past the post) discourages the electorate, rightfully so, from voting 3rd party, because the electorate knows they could potentially split the vote. Case in point 1992 - 200 presidential elections. Historically, 1912 is also a good year. A majority of people did not want the candidate who won, and the third party opition was either clearly (in 2000) or possible (92/96 and 1912) more in line with the losing party than the winning party. That means the 3 party voters probably would have preferred the losing party. Example, I'm sure Ralph Nader supporters would have preferred Gore to Bush, but they didn't like Gore enough to vote for him first.
You are right that proportional isn't going to fix presidential races; proportional is more for multiple member groups, i.e. Congress. President, along with governors and senators, should be elected under instant run-off voting or some type of preferential system. This way you can rank candidates. Bernie can be your #1, Jill Stein is #2, Hillary can be #3, Gary Johnson #4, and you can keep on going down the list, until Trump is last.  Of course you can rank them however you want.  The idea is, a candidate will need a majority, not a plurality.
I would be more than happy to talk more about this to anyone. This is literally my major. 
TLDR: Winner take all voting discourages the electorate, rightfully so, from voting third party because it splits the vote. See instant run-off voting and proportional representation |
Well, damn 
You seem super smart on all of this. One thing I've always wondered, what's the deal with the electoral college? I know a lot of uneducated people like to think they're smart and say that voting doesn't matter, it's up to the electoral college, etc. which I understand is kinda true in a way, but there's also no way that voting is POINTLESS. Is this also in your field of expertise? Thank you 
And I really hope Hillary does another town hall soon! She does so well and totally shines, especially when placed next to the dim, half-melted candle that is Bernie. (No shade, he's just boring)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Venus Temple
And I really hope Hillary does another town hall soon! She does so well and totally shines, especially when placed next to the dim, half-melted candle that is Bernie. (No shade, he's just boring)
|
But why would a supposedly boring candidate have so much youth support?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,474
|
Quote:
Originally posted by hooky
But why would a supposedly boring candidate have so much youth support?
|
Because boring is subjective, I guess?
Me personally, I'm bored of his whole angry, unrealistic old man shtick. 
Having said that, I don't think he's a bad candidate. He's obviously my next pick after Clinton. I'm just not #feelingthebern.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/29/2011
Posts: 18,282
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Venus Temple
Well, damn
You seem super smart on all of this. One thing I've always wondered, what's the deal with the electoral college? I know a lot of uneducated people like to think they're smart and say that voting doesn't matter, it's up to the electoral college, etc. which I understand is kinda true in a way, but there's also no way that voting is POINTLESS. Is this also in your field of expertise? Thank you
And I really hope Hillary does another town hall soon! She does so well and totally shines, especially when placed next to the dim, half-melted candle that is Bernie. (No shade, he's just boring) |
lol thanks :hugs: Almost all the electors are pledged, meaning they are bound to vote for whoever wins their state. In the past people have purposefully voted for unpledged electors, but that hasn't happened since 1964, and it didn't even matter.
The only problem with the electoral college is that sometimes a person can win the national popular vote, but not the electoral college. Most recently in 2000. Usually, that's because someone's support is polarized in different regions. That doesn't happen often, and it is usually only in very close races.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
Town halls are more boring than debates. They might as well just film the candidates speaking for an hour each. Same results. Candidates can say whatever the hell they want, because the other candidate isn't there to call them on their ********, and the moderator will only do it so much. |
You get a lot more out of town halls because they have more time to talk and explain themselves. It might be lies, but they are put on a bigger scope than say debates where they can just say "Tax the wealthy". You have to explain how you'll do that and what that will do even if it doesn't make sense.
It might be boring to some, but not too me. I love hearing Hillary sound all smart and presidential.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,474
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Ramcoro
lol thanks :hugs: Almost all the electors are pledged, meaning they are bound to vote for whoever wins their state. In the past people have purposefully voted for unpledged electors, but that hasn't happened since 1964, and it didn't even matter.
The only problem with the electoral college is that sometimes a person can win the national popular vote, but not the electoral college. Most recently in 2000. Usually, that's because someone's support is polarized in different regions. That doesn't happen often, and it is usually only in very close races.
|
Okay, that makes a lot of sense! Thanks for the info and quick response. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 20,070
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/21/2012
Posts: 28,099
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sasha.
|
This isn't funny nor amusing. Hillary has no problem debating Bernie. He just doesn't tell her when and where they are debating just because he wants to use personal attacks against her in that certain area to hurt her image and poll numbers. She's requesting one simple task. Tone down the hurtful comments and focus on the substance of her policies, etc.
For example, talk about why Hillary is wrong about fracking. Don't say she's only supporting it because she's connected to big banks and corporations after she has repeatedly told the American people for months now that that is not true. Her campaign has already agreed to 2 debates (one in April and one in May). There is literally no point in debating at this point if all he is going to do is say the same thing he said in the last 8 debates and at his rallies and interviews for months. It's a waste of time and she can use that time to do events. Plus she already said she had no problem debating in New York about a month or two ago. Next.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2011
Posts: 31,849
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sasha.
|
They had like 903820982 debates already. its clear that the debates would only benefit Bernie by giving him exposure in states that serve him  on a daily basis. Hillary isn't stupid and she sure as hell will never let Bernie set the terms on when and where they will debate 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/6/2011
Posts: 3,476
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,730
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sasha.
|
We got her shook, of course she doesn't want to debate.
and to the people saying "they have nothing left to discuss" that's asinine.
You guys just don't want Bernie to get his message out because obviously when he does, he only gains on Hillary.
Like I said, SHOOK.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 59,596
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MiMiLAMb!
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/2/2014
Posts: 6,697
|
They are going to have to come up with a better response for not having more debates other than saying he's running a negative campaign. I personally would begin to characterise his campaign as "desperate" and "fledgling".
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 14,321
|
Several things bugging me about this, first: WHY does a state like Washington still use a caucus? 
Second, well, let's let the polls do the talking.
My timeline (from a friend in town) had this and I admire the enthusiasm, but turnout rates in general are abysmal here in this county  The stereotype of the old, white population voting en masse and holding up the voter count despite the multicultural majority is true. Many of them are barely opening up to the idea of being loose with social issues so good luck having them suddenly vote far-left.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 3,730
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus
They are going to have to come up with a better response for not having more debates other than saying he's running a negative campaign. I personally would begin to characterise his campaign as "desperate" and "fledgling".
|
mhm and how is that?
EDIT: Literally the only person that would look desperate if her campaign did that, would be Hillary
and with no need, considering she's beating him
|
|
|
|
|
|
