Who would you probably vote for?

[Raider5678]

To start, I don't want this to be a giant political argument. I want you guys to post your thoughts on each of the 4 candidates(Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders. After that who you would probably vote for. Now you don't have to go into extreme detail, but the basic reasoning would be nice. If you post your thoughts on one candidate, please post your thoughts on a candidate on the other side as well, to keep it even. Also, try to use minor opinions, rather than just saying things that don't really add up at all. If two post counteract each other, or one is proven wrong, they really don't point out anything except that you didn't really research everything you posted about.

 

Again, try not to erupt into a giant argument. Just your thoughts on the candidates. Thanks in advance!

[Phi for All]

Sanders is the only candidate not under investigation by the FBI. He has the only positive budget, where all the other candidates are deficit-spending their asses off (which is such hypocrisy from the Republicans, who claim it's always the Dems who jack up the debt). He's the only candidate who seems more interested in representing what the People really want, instead of furthering his own political career. He's the only candidate who hasn't taken money from the corporations that we all know are causing huge problems for our country. He's the only candidate who will try to stop the insanity of waging full-scale war against cheap little terrorists, and try to change the focus so our responses at least don't create more terrorists.

 

I think that covers how I feel about the rest.

[Delta1212]

Sanders is the only candidate not under investigation by the FBI. He has the only positive budget, where all the other candidates are deficit-spending their asses off (which is such hypocrisy from the Republicans, who claim it's always the Dems who jack up the debt). He's the only candidate who seems more interested in representing what the People really want, instead of furthering his own political career. He's the only candidate who hasn't taken money from the corporations that we all know are causing huge problems for our country. He's the only candidate who will try to stop the insanity of waging full-scale war against cheap little terrorists, and try to change the focus so our responses at least don't create more terrorists.

 

I think that covers how I feel about the rest.

Could you point me towards some of the foreign policy stuff? I haven't see as much of that from him and I'm curious.

[Phi for All]

Could you point me towards some of the foreign policy stuff? I haven't see as much of that from him and I'm curious.

 

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/bernie-sanders/on-islamic-state

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/bernie-sanders/on-defense

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/bernie-sanders/on-north-korea

 

Sanders is convinced the US has to stop making these Leroy Jenkins military moves, and start working with coalitions of affected groups to form more effective solutions. We need to stay out of the boots-on-the-ground battles in the Middle East, yet remain supportive of our allies. This is where he differs a lot from the rest. He thinks we should be helping the people in affected regions form alliances that will help quell the chaos instead of inciting it.

 

Everyone else is going to continue sending drones and scarfing down the terrorism bait, bankrupting us in the name of national security and corporate greed. We know that doesn't work, makes the rich richer, and escalates the fear felt by the general public. When you aren't thinking in terms of "waging business" on our enemies, growing their numbers to keep things profitable, I think you can actually look for solutions that don't involve killing and military intervention. If we can stop the source of funding for terrorism, remove their teeth, then their own societies can go back to dealing with the extremists among them.

[MigL]

If I could vote in the American election, B. Sanders would probably get my vote.

But I could certainly live with H. Clinton as president.

( sorry Hillary, hope wins out, although the election is still 8 months away )

 

Of the mainstream Republicans none are worthy of a vote ( the last one I liked was J McCain ).

And if you guys elect D Trump, I personally will never visit ( 15 min away ) the US again.

Edited April 13, 2016 by MigL

[Phi for All]

And if you guys elect D Trump, I personally will never visit ( 15 min away ) the US again.

 

You won't need to. We'll all be in your front yard, American refugees.

 

I still get the couch though, right?

[Bill Angel]

And if you guys elect D Trump, I personally will never visit ( 15 min away ) the US again.

If Trump does get the Republican nomination, I believe that a lot of Republicans will just skip voting for President and just vote to ensure that their Republican Representatives and Senators stay in office.

[Phi for All]

If Trump does get the Republican nomination, I believe that a lot of Republicans will just skip voting for President and just vote to ensure that their Republican Representatives and Senators stay in office.

 

Sorry, we're going to need them out, too. We need the building for actual governing.

[John Cuthber]

If Trump does get the Republican nomination, I believe that a lot of Republicans will just skip voting for President and just vote to ensure that their Republican Representatives and Senators stay in office.

How representative are those "representatives"?

If I was voting it would probably be for Sanders, but essentially "anyone but Trump" which suggests that he as done his job.

Next to Trump, even Cruz looks electable.

[Ten oz]

In my opinion this thread may as well ask us to pick between Sanders and Clinton. Neither Cruz or Trump are electable. Despite that most media coverage of any primary candidate in history and numerous reports from Feb-Mar declaring his the victor Trump is not on pace to get the delegates needed to win the Republican primary. If Trump can not win more than a third support within a partisan primary I see no reason to assume he'd be able to win a general election. Same applies to Cruz. Neither has quality support even amongst registered Republicans and both are polling to lose to either Clinton or Sanders by double digits. So the question here is Clinton or Sanders.The answer is Sanders.

[Phi for All]

Next to Trump, even Cruz looks electable.

 

Agreed, and I think this is a very dangerous sentiment. Ever since it was pointed out that this election is very much like the 1968 election, with Trump as the volatile and bigoted Wallace, Sanders as the professorial McCarthy, Clinton as Humphrey, and Cruz as Nixon, I've read a lot of the things Cruz has to say. He's a poisonous little toad, unbelievably petty, and loves to stab at the back from the darkness. After almost 50 years, putting Cruz in the Oval Office would be like Nixon on steroids, imo. The evil politicians have learned a lot over the decades.

[Ten oz]

 

Agreed, and I think this is a very dangerous sentiment. Ever since it was pointed out that this election is very much like the 1968 election, with Trump as the volatile and bigoted Wallace, Sanders as the professorial McCarthy, Clinton as Humphrey, and Cruz as Nixon, I've read a lot of the things Cruz has to say. He's a poisonous little toad, unbelievably petty, and loves to stab at the back from the darkness. After almost 50 years, putting Cruz in the Oval Office would be like Nixon on steroids, imo. The evil politicians have learned a lot over the decades.

Nixon was a parnoid sociopath but also a shrewd politician who was basically a centerist Democrat by todays political standards. I think the Cruz comparison is actually rather insulting to Nixon.....hahaha

[Phi for All]

In my opinion this thread may as well ask us to pick between Sanders and Clinton. Neither Cruz or Trump are electable. Despite that most media coverage of any primary candidate in history and numerous reports from Feb-Mar declaring his the victor Trump is not on pace to get the delegates needed to win the Republican primary. If Trump can not win more than a third support within a partisan primary I see no reason to assume he'd be able to win a general election. Same applies to Cruz. Neither has quality support even amongst registered Republicans and both are polling to lose to either Clinton or Sanders by double digits. So the question here is Clinton or Sanders.The answer is Sanders.

 

I think this is the real reason Paul Ryan doesn't want to come charging to the rescue. He knows the Republicans have no chance this year. Why waste the effort, and get ground up by Trump's propaganda machine, just to lose in the end anyway?

[Sirona]

 

You won't need to. We'll all be in your front yard, American refugees.

 

I still get the couch though, right?

Your family can couch surf in Australia, just don't come on a boat.

[iNow]

I think this is the real reason Paul Ryan doesn't want to come charging to the rescue. He knows the Republicans have no chance this year. Why waste the effort, and get ground up by Trump's propaganda machine, just to lose in the end anyway?

Further, why be the face of a party decision that does little more than incite and infuriate the base?

 

You think they're mad now? Try making a move at the convention (like putting faux-policy-wonk P90X Ryan on the ticket) that does little more than remind GOP primary voters that their preferences are meaningless by putting someone on the ballet who didn't even participate in the primary.

[Ten oz]

Further, why be the face of a party decision that does little more than incite and infuriate the base?

 

You think they're mad now? Try making a move at the convention (like putting faux-policy-wonk P90X Ryan on the ticket) that does little more than remind GOP primary voters that their preferences are meaningless by putting someone on the ballet who didn't even participate in the primary.

Is there a preference? Trump has received 37% of the popular vote and of the 63% that have voted from someones else exit polling shows they all pretty much would prefer anyone over Trump. If only about a third of the party want either Trump or Cruz as their first choice but then over half would prefer Cruz over Trump as a second choice what then?

 

In my opinion the argument that Trump got the nearest so they have to or should let him have it is a very weak one. Imagine someone demanding a lottery pay out because they almost had the numbers. The number of delegates required have been known from the begining. Trump's failure to reach the needed delegate count stems from his lack of support and not from backroom deals. If Trump could do better than 37% he'd have more delegates. Fivethirtyeight just did an analysis a couple days ago showing the the struct of the Republican primary has actually favored Trump and not hurt or been unfair. Even with advantages Trump is still coming up short.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-right-that-the-gop-primary-is-unfair-it-favors-him/

[iNow]

We largely agree, but I'm more sympathetic than you to the idea that primary voters will feel slighted and for good reason.

 

It's as if you're scheduling a big celebration event and the restaurant/caterer polls you and your guests in advance about whether they want chicken or fish, but then upon arrival the facility manager says, "you're getting tofu."

 

Sure, it's their right to do this, but it is also going to make a lot of people justifiably upset and angry.

Edited April 16, 2016 by iNow

[Ten oz]

We largely agree, but I'm more sympathetic than you to the idea that primary voters will feel slighted and for good reason.

 

It's as if you're scheduling a big celebration event and the restaurant/caterer polls you and your guests in advance about whether they want chicken or fish, but then upon arrival the facility manager says, "you're getting tofu."

 

Sure, it's their right to do this, but it is also going to make a lot of people justifiably upset and angry.

I agree people will feel disappointed. I just don't think as a party the Republican can allow that to impact who they nominate. Neither major party can allow themselves to be taken over by independents. If they did they would cease to exist.

 

Trump's and Sanders popularity is a good argument for more parties. I say let Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders all run in the general. The mistake we (Americans) keep making is trying to transform one of the our 2 major parties into what something they are not. If we look at only the policies of Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41, Clinton, and Obama it would be tough to distinguish who are the Republicans and who are the Democrats. In many ways that disappoints us, that at times there is seemingly no choice, but it also protects us by keeping politics generally moderate. Of course Reagan and Bush 43 up ended that, we all see how dangerous that was, we see how damaging it is when a major party gets radicalized. Instead of polarizing our traditional white beard parties we need to do the hard work of getting behind other parties. If the Green Party and Libertarian party could get the type of support Trump and Sanders are getting they'd be real parties that had the ability to get people put in office. That would have a much bigger impact in the long run. Instead we are fear other parties because we fear aiding the enemy by dividing votes.

[Delta1212]

Under the current voting system, that's an absolutely legitimate fear because it is exactly what would happen. You need some combination of proportional representation, the ability to coalition build post-election or the ability to capture people's 2nd, third, etc choices in order for more than two parties to be viable.

 

A group needs some degree of concentrated regional support in order to do well in our democracy.

[iNow]

Trump's and Sanders popularity is a good argument for more parties. I say let Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders all run in the general.

It's an interesting point. I need to better educate myself on what complexities prevent this from happening now. My instincts say money, without which you can't get enough media exposure and travel for enough millions of people to recognize your name and choose you, but this is surely too one-dimensional and there are likely other dynamics and requirements state by state to even get on the ballot.

 

Also, I need to think through what are the potential downstream consequences before commenting further, something I lack time to do well immediately, but wanted to acknowledge my overall interest in your suggestion.

[Delta1212]

It's an interesting point. I need to better educate myself on what complexities prevent this from happening now. My instincts say money, without which you can't get enough media exposure and travel for enough millions of people to recognize your name and choose you, but this is surely too one-dimensional and there are likely other dynamics and requirements state by state to even get on the ballot.

 

Also, I need to think through what are the potential downstream consequences before commenting further, something I lack time to do well immediately, but wanted to acknowledge my overall interest in your suggestion.

If we're talking about a literal "that specific situation happening as of right now" beyond the obvious game theory issues with running an independent campaign and the effect it has on the race as a whole, there are also some obstacles to getting on the ballot especially for independent candidates.

 

Some states are more restrictive than others, but what it generally boils down to is getting a set number of signatures from registered voters in the state by a certain deadline. There isn't enough time to reasonably reach that threshold in a lot of states with the deadlines being what they are, and even were that not the case, the deadlines for many states pass before the conventions for the major parties, so if you wait until you find out that you aren't going to be the nominee for your party, it's too late to mount an independent bid as anything but a write-in.

 

You can somewhat get around the signature issue by running as the candidate for a recognized third party, but they're all going through their own primary process at the moment.

[Ten oz]

Under the current voting system, that's an absolutely legitimate fear because it is exactly what would happen. You need some combination of proportional representation, the ability to coalition build post-election or the ability to capture people's 2nd, third, etc choices in order for more than two parties to be viable.

 

A group needs some degree of concentrated regional support in order to do well in our democracy.

The fear is always based on the idea of there being the 2 major parties and then one independent. In reality that is not the way is has to be. It 2012 beyond the 2 major parties there was also the Libertarian, Green, Constitution, and Justice parties.

 

Jill Stien (Green Party) was on the ballot in 37 states. Her "Green New Deal" was a proposal I believe most all Bernie supporters would love. Gary Johnson (Libertarian party) was on the ballot in 48 states. His flat consumption tax plan is one that is very popular amongst the those on the right. Yet neither Stien or Johnson generated much support. People are affraid to vote for them. But is a 4 way race, not a 3 way, would voting Green or Libertarian truly help the other guy? There is a false notion of options.

 

Prior to the 70's party primaries did not include the whole country. When JFK won the Democratic nomination only 16 states voted in that primary. JFK ran against Nixon who had won the nomination in an 11 state primary. The way the game is played today further solidifies the the control the 2 major parties have. They have us all sold in to their primary. They get us emotional committed to them as the only way. We view it as a choice. A way to get the 2 best candidates we can; that is not what it is. It is a party nomination. Bernie Sanders is an independent. Longest serving independent in the Senate. Why would the Democratic Party allow a non-democrat to have their nomination? Trump has never won and held office in his life. He has supported both sides over the years. Why would the Republican Party allow a non-Republican to have their nomination? It makes no sense. If we (American voters) want different options we must stop being afraid of voting for different Parties.

[Delta1212]

Let's take a moment to look at a four-way race. For convenience, I'm going to plot four hypothetical candidates along a left/right axis. This is a bit oversimplified, but you can do the same analysis using more dimensions for various issues by adding coordinate values instead of just using a single number, and the end result winds up being the same.

 

So, using a negative/left, positive/right scale, let's say you have candidates A, B, C and D.

 

A is -0.9, B is -0.1, C is 0.5 and D is 0.7.

 

Let's assume that the electorate is evenly distributed along this line (in reality this would probably not be the case, but it's easier that way and the conclusions that can be drawn are ultimately the same), and that everyone wants the winning candidate to be as close as possible to their own position.

 

If we assume everyone in the electorate simply votes for the candidate closest to their own position regardless of what everyone else is doing, the vote breaks down as follows:

 

25% A, 35% B, 20% C, 20% D.

 

Now let's see how each voting group did, and whether there is anything they could have done differently to improve their results.

 

For A voters, the only candidate better than B is A. They all already voted for A, so there is nothing they could have done differently to improve on the result that they got. They could be happier, but they didn't do too badly.

 

B voters got the candidate closest to them on the line, so there's no way they could do any better in this election.

 

C is a mixed bag. For half of C voters, B is the next closest candidate, for the other half, D is the closest candidate. For the B-leaning voters, the only candidate better than the winner is C, who they voted for, so they couldn't have done anything differently to improve their result. For the D-leaning voters, D would be a better result than B. Now, if that group of voters had voted for D instead of C, the result would be:

 

25% A, 35% B, 10% C, 30% D.

 

Well, B still wins, so there is nothing any of the C voters could have done to improve the election results over what they got.

 

Now let's look at D.

 

For all D voters, C is preferable to B. If all D voters had voted for C instead of D, then the vote breakdown would have been:

 

25% A, 35% B, 40% C, 0% D.

 

So D voters would get a better result in the election if they all vote for C.

 

But now let's take those results and run back in the other direction.

 

With this new vote, D voters get the second closest candidate to themselves. The only candidate that would be better is D, but if they vote for D, B wins and they get a worse result, so there is nothing they could do to improve the election for themselves over voting for C.

 

C now gets the candidate that is closest to them.

 

B is now the one that is split. For 4/7ths of B voters, C is their second choice, so there is nothing they could do to improve on C.

 

For 3/7ths, A is a preferable choice. If they switch their vote to A, then A reaches 40% and ties with C. However, the remaining B voters are all C-leaning, and if they switch their vote to break the tie, you get 40% A, 60% C. So B voters switching their votes still results in a C victory.

 

Now, for A voters, B is a preferable choice to C. If they vote for A, C wins. If they switch their vote to B, then the vote breakdown becomes

 

0% A, 60% B, 40% C, 0% D.

 

You've now reached a point where no one can switch their vote in order to improve the outcome for themselves.

 

And in any voting system that is "winner take all" rather than proportional representation, you will get a similar collapse down to two viable candidates, regardless of how many you start with, because if you have voters for two or more losing candidates who are closer to each other on the issues than they are to the winner, they would have been better off joining together to support a single candidate rather than splitting their votes. Splitting the vote multiple ways does not change this as it still rewards the group that is most effectively able to coalition build around a single candidate.

 

You can get around this to a degree by having a Parliamentary system where the coalition building can take place after the vote, so that smaller parties are able to accumulate votes with the understanding that they will still have a say in the final shape of the government even if they don't win outright, or by having something like an instant run-off vote where you can rank candidates and have your vote thrown to a second or third choice if you initially vote for someone that doesn't wind up having enough support to win.

 

With the way we currently vote, people have to try to estimate how others are going to vote and who the best viable candidate is ahead of time with only very rough information to going on, which means that having two big brand names works to their advantage, because it removes the concern that you may misconstrue who the closest "consensus" candidate is in favor of someone who winds up ultimately being a fringe candidate. It also makes the primary the battle ground for moving the "consensus" candidate as close to your position as you can, preferably without compromising their electability, which is where that talking point comes from.

 

There are some institutional obstacles that have been put up in the way of third party and independent candidates Ina lot of places, usually by the established parties as a means of protecting their positions, but unless you fundamentally reform the way that we vote in order to alter the strategic equations away from collapsing to 1v1 elections, you're not going to get long-term viability for any third (or fourth, or fifth) parties. Especially not on a national scale. The best you can hope for is for one of the established parties to eventually be replaced by a different one, but I don't think that's really what you are looking for.

 

Otherwise, a third party or independent candidate needs enough of a base of support to make them seem like they are more likely to win than at least one of the candidates from a typically more viable party, or else a situation where the only alternatives are so unpalatable to voters that it opens door to someone else.

 

That's a possibility for certain candidates at certain times, especially regionally where a national party may be less viable and therefore less of a threat, or where a candidate may find it easier to become personally popular or influential enough to mount a campaign on their own, but even with the craziness of the current election season, we haven't reached that point on the national level yet, and as I said, even if we did, it isn't a stable scenario over the long term.

 

Ultimately, the only real way to change the two-party system is to change how we vote. Anything less isn't going to work, because it actually is the most rational way to vote under the current rules.

[Ten oz]

@Delta1212,

Great post. Well thought out. Surely better organized than my response will be . In my opinion is did not include two critical component that matter today; demographics and parties evolution.

 

A-D would not have a vote based that is similiar. Whites, Blacks, Latino, Asians, men 18-24 (every age group on up), women 18-24 (every age group on up) Southerners, Easterners,and etc, etc, etc all vote a differently. Some groups would be represented A-D while others would only be represented C& D. Lets add names A - Trump, B - Cruz, C - Clinton, D - Sanders. The only demos that Trump and Cruz are competing for are conservative whites. Trump specifically does poorly with women so Trump is only getting conservative white males. Clinton is getting the majority of blacks and then good amounts of every demo (whites, latinos, asians, women, etc). Sanders is doing about like Clinton only his crowd has less blacks and is younger. If this year saw a 4 way race Trump and Cruz simply would not be representing enough people. There is a good cahnce that by the time this primary is over both Sanders and Clinton will have received more votes in the primary than any of the Republicans. Currently Clinton is ahead of Trump and Sanders is just behind Trump but ahead of Cruz and the race is moving into more progressive states like NY, CA, PA, WA, MD, OR, and etc where both Sanders and Clinton will do better than Trump or Cruz.

 

Party evolution; our 2 major parties have changed over time. George Wallace was a Democrat. His third party run highlighted a huge bible belt segment of the Democratic party that were bigots. His run changed our two parties. The Republican Party seized upon that with the Southern Stategy and as a result the GOP became more bigoted, religious, rural serving, and Southern. Over the last 40 years the GOP has used racism as a means of rejecting social programs by implying all such programs are just give aways to lazy minorities. As the demographics of the country are changing the GOP can no longer afford to be an exclusively white party. The GOP has lost the vote in 5 of the last 6 general elections (Gore won the popular over Bush). Obama received over 70% of every minority group in both 08' and 12'. In a 4 way, arguably, Most would be best represented Clinton or Sanders because they would have a little of every group vs Cruz and Trump who would have only a single group. The GOP has such a diversity problem they can not afford to lose even a sliver of their base and still have a chance to win.

 

The above isn't always true but it is today. Over time multiple parties are not always viable but they are when there are large under represented voices. Today the under represented progressive voice finally outnumbers the bigots who have bouyed the GOP since George Wallace. The GOP needs to find a way to grow their tent and progressives should be tired of supporting centrist polcies out of fear of enabling conservatives. If we divide by 3 or 4 today most people line up left of center yet one of our 2 parties isn't moving and is able to use their brand name to be taken more serious than they should be and it freezes both sides. Either Sanders or Clinton beat Cruz or Trump by double digits. The GOP must change to in order to continue and I think more parties for the next couple election cycles would be a healthy way to start that evolution. We have spent enough time agruing over abortion, immigration, oil, gays, and welfare. I think the majority of the U.S. would like to move on and the inclusion of other parties would allow for a change in narrative. Allow us to start arguing over a new set of issues

[Strange]

How about this guy:

 

If the current frontrunners in this year’s presidential race just don’t appeal to you, perhaps you’d like to really think outside the box. Seattle lawyer Andrew Basiago is also running for president, as an independent. And he cites his extensive experience traveling through time as one of his strongest qualifications for office.

 

http://gizmodo.com/this-candidate-for-president-claims-hes-traveled-throug-1773928996