Well, it's official.

[Dittohead not!]

Yeah, but neither the #neverTrump faction nor the Bernie faction has enough votes to win...and they won't converge with each other and won't likely converge with their parent party because it's their way or the highway. This is what's funny to me: they think if they can pressure either Hillary or Trump to side with their ideology, they'll come back to the nominee. If the nominee moves farther to one direction to accommodate a 'fringe' element, it makes it harder for that nominee to win the general election.

This could be the lowest presidential vote turnout in history. A third (or fourth) party candidate may garner a substantial number or votes. Either way, the winner will be either Hillary or Trump.

I suppose you're right.

If only the voters could realize that since the main asset of Trump is not being Clinton, and the main asset of Clinton is not being Trump, someone who is neither Trump nor Clinton should be twice as electable.

 

[Lafayette]

I don't see a chance for a 3+ party system. A 3+ party system would dilute the percentage of votes for each party. Your chances of winning the presidential election are smaller in a 3+ party system.

Works in the UK.

If the centrists, who (IF they vote) flop either way depending upon a candidate's platform, the center becomes King Maker.

This is exactly what can happen in the two Chambers of Congress, and would be the equivalent of the UK. In a tripartite-system of governance (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary) as ours is, how many times have the Executive and the Legislative powers coincided?

See here: Control of Congress*

The blue or red "blocks" must all the same color vertically.

If you look carefully, there is a real-difference between both "turns of the century". That is, the period at the beginning of the 20th century was mostly solid, but the 21st century has been mostly fractionated. Which may be the reason that "Nothing gets done", since - in a two party system - one party can block the other if they have control either of the Presidency or the one Chamber of Congress.

That's how the "political game" in LaLaLand on the Potomac is played nowadays.

*From here: By ChrisnHouston - File:Control of the U.S. Senate.PNGFile:Control of the U.S. House of Representatives.PNG, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28885585
________________________________

 

[Frank Apisa]

I suppose you're right.

If only the voters could realize that since the main asset of Trump is not being Clinton, and the main asset of Clinton is not being Trump, someone who is neither Trump nor Clinton should be twice as electable.

If you think that person would be "twice as electable" as either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Ditto, you are kidding yourself.

There are going to be several "not Trump or Clinton" people on the ballots. My guess is the combined vote total of ALL OF THEM will not total more than 5% of the total vote...and NONE will come close to getting any Electoral counts.

 

[Indeeependaaant]

I hate Hillary more, I'll leave it at that to avoid the egg throwing. I will say I've been disappointed in the election process for a long time now, I think it's a mess. I think it would send a real message if the majority of people in the U.S. registered Independent.
Since 2008, the percentage of political independents -- those who identify as such before their leanings to the two major parties are taken into account -- has steadily climbed from 35% to the current 43%, exceeding 40% each of the last four years. Prior to 2011, the high in independent identification was 39% in 1995 and 1999.

The recent rise in political independence has come at the expense of both parties, but more among Democrats than among Republicans.
In U.S., New Record 43% Are Political Independents

It's slowly happening.....

 

[Frank Apisa]

I hate Hillary more, I'll leave it at that to avoid the egg throwing. I will say I've been disappointed in the election process for a long time now, I think it's a mess. I think it would send a real message if the majority of people in the U.S. registered Independent.
Since 2008, the percentage of political independents -- those who identify as such before their leanings to the two major parties are taken into account -- has steadily climbed from 35% to the current 43%, exceeding 40% each of the last four years. Prior to 2011, the high in independent identification was 39% in 1995 and 1999.

The recent rise in political independence has come at the expense of both parties, but more among Democrats than among Republicans.
In U.S., New Record 43% Are Political Independents

It's slowly happening.....

I can agree.

I am a capital "I" Independent...and I became an Independent coming out of the Democratic Party.

But I often vote for Democrats (I favor a progressive agenda)...and these days, I wouldn't vote for a Republican on a bet. I withhold my vote rather than do that...although I often have a better choice.

Although I did "cost" the Dems by becoming an Independent...this election there is no doubt whatever that my vote will go to the Dem candidate.

 

[RetiredNSmilin]

The country is divided into the "anybody but Clinton" camp, and the "anybody but Trump" camp.

One side or the other will win in November.

And the losing side will never accept it.

So, get out and vote against your favorite bad candidate. When he/she goes down in defeat, you can declare victory.

But, we'll still be stuck with one or the other. There is no "anyone but Trump or Clinton" camp, or, if there is, they have no chance.

and the country will be even more divided than it is now. The losing side will spend all of its time flinging crap, some of it made up, at their despised villain. Get your crap piles ready. You may need them.

What a crappy election.

Dittohead...I recommend your post be chiseled in stone and put on the tombstone of this once great country.

If ever there was a defining moment you can put your finger on, that signaled the downfall of the US, then it was this.

The time Trump and Hillary BOTH became their respective party's nominees.

I will be voting for Trump....BUT.....BUT....the divisions we share will go on and on, and on, ad nauseum.

If either side gets 100% of what they want, the other side will be tearing their clothes, gnashing their teeth, and rolling on the floor foaming at the mouth.

As for me, I have decided to put a small American flag on one side of my newly built wall, and on the other side a small Mexican flag. Seeuns how it could not have been built without them. Then I intend to enjoy getting back in shape with archery, knife throwing, tomahawk throwing, and shooting small rimfires at my majestic and solid wall and let the world pass me by.

But according to some tin foil hatters, no matter who wins, the other one will put me up against it with a blindfold and a cigarette.

 

[Indeeependaaant]

I can agree.

I am a capital "I" Independent...and I became an Independent coming out of the Democratic Party.

But I often vote for Democrats (I favor a progressive agenda)...and these days, I wouldn't vote for a Republican on a bet. I withhold my vote rather than do that...although I often have a better choice.

Although I did "cost" the Dems by becoming an Independent...this election there is no doubt whatever that my vote will go to the Dem candidate.

I would have loved Bernie to be in the race, but at the end of the day, I knew it wouldn't come to fruition. I'm one of the Bernie voters they talk about on the news who will lean right now as they both addressed similar issues. Of course, their approach is different, but I think in a capitalist society Trump has a better shot at it. I am not voting for Trump to piss off Hillary, contrary to the media's description of Bernie voters. It's always difficult to vote for someone who I don't agree with on every issue. I don't think there has ever been a candidate that I agreed with 100%. There are a few key elements I want that Trump has discussed which is why he'll get my vote now that Bernie is out, well almost out, lol a real diehard. Hilary troubles me on to many levels, I can not vote for her. I am a woman, so it's not that I wouldn't want to see one in the White House, but I can't fathom her behind that desk. I do understand that some people agree with her on most issues, may the best candidate win.

I don't do party politics. We will see who the Independent ticket offers before I commit. So far it's a Trump vote.

 

[Ontologuy]

The country is divided into the "anybody but Clinton" camp, and the "anybody but Trump" camp.

One side or the other will win in November.

And the losing side will never accept it.

So, get out and vote against your favorite bad candidate. When he/she goes down in defeat, you can declare victory.

But, we'll still be stuck with one or the other. There is no "anyone but Trump or Clinton" camp, or, if there is, they have no chance.

and the country will be even more divided than it is now. The losing side will spend all of its time flinging crap, some of it made up, at their despised villain. Get your crap piles ready. You may need them.

What a crappy election.

Yes, we're all a bunch of frogs, being given a choice this November to be plunked into a lidded pot of boiling water (Trump) or into a pot of cool water where the heat is slowly turned up to a boil (Clinton). We croak either way.

Our country's method of choosing candidates is seriously flawed.

So, we're left to come together in defense via an Americans power-lobby group to fight all the bad candidates out there, forcing them to do good things by Americans or be impeached/restricted to one term.

Move On.org tried that on the left and Citizens United tried that on the right. Both failed, as they were simply largely irrelevant, and one or the other was assured of a candidate victory anyway.

Americans are greatly centrist, aligning neither with the left or the right or concoctions of the two (libertarian), a bell curve graph across the American traditional political spectrum.

So only the new centrist group Powerful American Political Alliance can succeed in bringing Americans together to effectively counteract the hot water we'll be in when an evil is elected this year .. and, the group may be the forerunner of a "third" party that will one day put good candidates in office.

I joined this group last fall.

Trump or Clinton, either will be so terrible for Americans.

We must join together at the center of the political spectrum if we are to counteract this terribleness when it arrives.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Yes, we're all a bunch of frogs, being given a choice this November to be plunked into a lidded pot of boiling water (Trump) or into a pot of cool water where the heat is slowly turned up to a boil (Clinton). We croak either way.

Our country's method of choosing candidates is seriously flawed.

So, we're left to come together in defense via an Americans power-lobby group to fight all the bad candidates out there, forcing them to do good things by Americans or be impeached/restricted to one term.

Move On.org tried that on the left and Citizens United tried that on the right. Both failed, as they were simply largely irrelevant, and one or the other was assured of a candidate victory anyway.

Americans are greatly centrist, aligning neither with the left or the right or concoctions of the two (libertarian), a bell curve graph across the American traditional political spectrum.

So only the new centrist group Powerful American Political Alliance can succeed in bringing Americans together to effectively counteract the hot water we'll be in when an evil is elected this year .. and, the group may be the forerunner of a "third" party that will one day put good candidates in office.

I joined this group last fall.

Trump or Clinton, either will be so terrible for Americans.

We must join together at the center of the political spectrum if we are to counteract this terribleness when it arrives.

You might as well have joined The Occupy "movement." (That really went far, didn't it!)

One...any third party traction will be gotten only if one of the current major parties (GOP) finishes its public political suicide...and a new party takes its place almost overnight. (Sorta like the Republican Party came into existence.)

Two...any new party will be tainted with the same stain almost from day one. Fact is, it will be tainted BEFORE day one...during its run-up to its new status. There is nothing more naive than to think that a new party will produce honest politicians ready to give up ambition and devotion to self-advancement for the "good of the people."

Three...if the Republicans are successful at destroying themselves (they may not even get that right)...the people in the "new" party will mainly be the same people who helped with the Republican political suicide. Their greatest contribution will be to set up a new seppuku.

 

[Ontologuy]

You might as well have joined The Occupy "movement." (That really went far, didn't it!)

One...any third party traction will be gotten only if one of the current major parties (GOP) finishes its public political suicide...and a new party takes its place almost overnight. (Sorta like the Republican Party came into existence.)

Two...any new party will be tainted with the same stain almost from day one. Fact is, it will be tainted BEFORE day one...during its run-up to its new status. There is nothing more naive than to think that a new party will produce honest politicians ready to give up ambition and devotion to self-advancement for the "good of the people."

Three...if the Republicans are successful at destroying themselves (they may not even get that right)...the people in the "new" party will mainly be the same people who helped with the Republican political suicide. Their greatest contribution will be to set up a new seppuku.

Not only is your assessment here obviously flawed, it implies an attitude of just succumb to a fear of failure, an attitude that had it been prevalent in the 1770s America would have never gotten off the ground to thwart the monarchy's disastrous policies.

But clearly you have stated that you actually like Hillary Clinton and that you think she'll win, and thus you're really just afraid of a large majority of Americans organization reigning in her policies, as disastrous as Queen Hillary's policies would be for American citizens.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Not only is your assessment here obviously flawed, it implies an attitude of just succumb to a fear of failure, an attitude that had it been prevalent in the 1770s America would have never gotten off the ground to thwart the monarchy's disastrous policies.

But clearly you have stated that you actually like Hillary Clinton and that you think she'll win, and thus you're really just afraid of a large majority of Americans organization reigning in her policies, as disastrous as Queen Hillary's policies would be for American citizens.

I most certainly "like" Hillary Clinton...and I am delighted I will have the opportunity to vote for her. Haven't had that opportunity previously. And to think, not only do I get to vote for her...I get to vote for her for the office of President of the United States.

I do think she will win. Don't you?

Indulge your hatred for her. I think she will be a decent president...and may even be an outstanding one.

And throughout her administration...I get the enjoyment of watching some people continue to squirm.

 

[Lafayette]

PANEM ET CIRCENSES

Bernie has spent more than anyone else running this cycle ($207 million through April). Are you saying he made the point because he spent the most money and still lost?

Bernie was telling us "what should be done". What was done, he did in the only way he found honorable (no Super-PAC and no tax write-off on the donation). Had he been elected, he would be beholding to NO ONE. ("Money corrupts, and absolute money corrupts absolutely.")

That is the way elections should be run! Which is how it is done in Europe. Here in France there is not the mindless repetition 24/24 of political TV commercials during an election. Because they are banned. "Free Speech" is in public meetings, where candidates personally articulate their platform. Only regular debates are aired on TV, and they are free, gratis and for nothing (by law).

Political candidates in Europe do pay for the "public meeting" that their party organize in the various cities. We should increase taxation and spend the money on PUBLIC SERVICES that benefit the entire nation, rather than spending half-a-trillion dollars every four years on a Political Media Circus.

The origin of the word "circus" is Latin. The original Roman word referred to a coliseum in which Emperors held mock battles in the round (like "circle"). They were put on because ... well, because there was no television at the time. The coliseum referred to any large theatre, cinema, or stadium - and the purpose was to entertain the population. Panem et circenses or "bread and games" was a term for governing Rome.

Fast forward 2000 years -- what has changed? Not much. A government subsists for as long as people have a job and therefore enough money to - yes, bring up a family - but also entertain themselves ...
_______________

 

[Unitedwestand13]

What about the "anyone but Clinton or Trump" camp?

Is our situation ripe for a reasonable third party to win?

What good would a third party canidate as president accomplish if that third party has no foothold in congress?

 

[Lafayette]

Yes, and in ensures that we get an entertainer rather than a leader.

Let's not forget ... governance of a nation is not like managing a foot- or baseball team. There is no "Leader", just players. Politics has some stars, but mostly ham-actors who have nothing better to do with their lives. Especially the millionaires in the Senate.

(The average Net Worth of the US Congress last year was $7.9B. So, whose interests are they pursuing? Not those below the Poverty Threshold! Not even those below the median wage of $52K.)

There is nonetheless a "leadership-of-sorts", but it's like manipulating marionettes in a Punch-'n-Judy show. The basic game is tripartite management, and the Replicants have understood this fact since the get-go. Which is why they "packed" the Surpremes with a couple of outright nutters, one of whom had the good-grace to pass-on recently. Which is also why they "donate" (with strings attached) to selected members of Congress.

For these Plutocrats, politics IS INDEED a "game that they manage by manipulation". Just like they conduct their business affairs, they put their money where the payoff is maximized.

It's only us poor fools who think its a democracy - and especially when barely a third of us voters bother to get off our fat-duffs to go to the polls.

My Point: The Replicants have their political "game-plan" well honed whilst the rest of us are off playing video-games ...
___________________________

 

[Lafayette]

What good would a third party canidate as president accomplish if that third party has no foothold in congress?

Precisely. Which is why some countries do not have a "president".

The Prime Minister whose party-majority controls the Legislature runs the country. And when that party no longer has a majority, another PM is selected. (Both the UK and Canada run in that manner.)

So, the voting of members of the Legislature decide who runs the country.

Whilst we pack our Senate with multi-millionaires, and where the average net worth of both Chambers of Congress is $7.8B:



My Point:
*When we, the sheeple, start voting for "sheeple" to inhabit the denizens of Congress then we might just get the sort of political representation that suits us.
*Until then, we are stupidly playing a game that suits the upper-class zillionaires ...

 

[Lafayette]

Typo: Whilst we pack our Senate with multi-millionaires, and where the average net worth of both Chambers of Congress is $7.8B

Should read: Whilst we pack our Senate with multi-millionaires, and where the average net worth of both Chambers of Congress is $7.8M

Infographic: Total Net Worth of Congress
______________________

 

[Dittohead not!]

If you think that person would be "twice as electable" as either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Ditto, you are kidding yourself.

There are going to be several "not Trump or Clinton" people on the ballots. My guess is the combined vote total of ALL OF THEM will not total more than 5% of the total vote...and NONE will come close to getting any Electoral counts.

You're right about that, but only because people think they have to vote for a major party candidate. It's a catch 22: No one wants to vote third party because they can't win because no one votes for them.

Still, if there ever were a time when a third party candidate could overcome that little circular problem and win, it's now.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Let's not forget ... governance of a nation is not like managing a foot- or baseball team. There is no "Leader", just players. Politics has some stars, but mostly ham-actors who have nothing better to do with their lives. Especially the millionaires in the Senate.

(The average Net Worth of the US Congress last year was $7.9B. So, whose interests are they pursuing? Not those below the Poverty Threshold! Not even those below the median wage of $52K.)

There is nonetheless a "leadership-of-sorts", but it's like manipulating marionettes in a Punch-'n-Judy show. The basic game is tripartite management, and the Replicants have understood this fact since the get-go. Which is why they "packed" the Surpremes with a couple of outright nutters, one of whom had the good-grace to pass-on recently. Which is also why they "donate" (with strings attached) to selected members of Congress.

For these Plutocrats, politics IS INDEED a "game that they manage by manipulation". Just like they conduct their business affairs, they put their money where the payoff is maximized.

It's only us poor fools who think its a democracy - and especially when barely a third of us voters bother to get off our fat-duffs to go to the polls.

My Point: The Replicants have their political "game-plan" well honed whilst the rest of us are off playing video-games ...
___________________________

I'm not so sure Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton have been spending a lot of time playing video games, but the rest of your post does bring up the big, smelly problem if way too much money in politics.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Typo: Whilst we pack our Senate with multi-millionaires, and where the average net worth of both Chambers of Congress is $7.8B

Should read: Whilst we pack our Senate with multi-millionaires, and where the average net worth of both Chambers of Congress is $7.8M

Infographic: Total Net Worth of Congress
______________________

I counted nine zeros after that 7 in the graph. That would be seven billion, not million. Since there are nearly 500 members of Congress, a total net worth of 7.8 million wold be pretty modest, about 15 thousand each on average. Some of them would qualify for food stamps. An average of fifteen million each qualifies them for the oligarchy.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You're right about that, but only because people think they have to vote for a major party candidate. It's a catch 22: No one wants to vote third party because they can't win because no one votes for them.

Still, if there ever were a time when a third party candidate could overcome that little circular problem and win, it's now.

We'll see.

My bet: This election will be the same as most of the ones already over. The third parties will draw peanuts.

 

[Lafayette]

I counted nine zeros after that 7 in the graph. That would be seven billion, not million. Since there are nearly 500 members of Congress, a total net worth of 7.8 million wold be pretty modest, about 15 thousand each on average. Some of them would qualify for food stamps. An average of fifteen million each qualifies them for the oligarchy.

Net Worth US Congress Members:

$1 million dollar Net Worth.

The current estimated net worth of Congress is $7 billion dollars. In 2015, the typical member of the U.S. Congress had a net worth of over $1 million dollars. The richest member of congress is Senator Darrel Issa (R-CA) with an estimated net worth of $448 million. Nov 12, 2015

I guess I got that one wrong.

But a "typical" member of Congress worth a mega-buck does not seem typical to me. No wonder those bozos are so outta touch.

From here: OpenSecrets.org, "Tea Party House Members Even Wealthier Than Other GOP Lawmakers". Excerpt:

The wealth among the House Tea Party Caucus’s membership ranges from Rep. Stephen Fincher‘s (R-Tenn.) estimated average net worth of negative $3.3 million to the $49.3 million of the richest member of the group, Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas).

Similarly, on the other side of the aisle, members of the House Progressive Caucus may have less first-hand familiarity than some of their fellow lawmakers with the economic pinch being felt by many in the nation. Those in the caucus are less wealthy than the average House member, according to the data for last year — but actually slightly wealthier than the average Democrat.

The Center’s research found that the median average net worth of a member of the Progressive Caucus was about $639,500 in 2010. That’s 3.4 percent more than the average net worth of $618,500 of the median House Democrat who is not part of the Progressive Caucus.

Note that Net Worth = Wealth - Debt, and Wealth includes the property value of a residence.
________________________________________

 

[Dittohead not!]

Net Worth US Congress Members:



I guess I got that one wrong.

But a "typical" member of Congress worth a mega-buck does not seem typical to me. No wonder those bozos are so outta touch.

From here: OpenSecrets.org, "Tea Party House Members Even Wealthier Than Other GOP Lawmakers". Excerpt:



Note that Net Worth = Wealth - Debt, and Wealth includes the property value of a residence.
________________________________________

Exactly.
We're not becoming an oligarchy.
We already are one.

 

[Wiggen]

I'm Southern. Being assured of defeat only makes me more eager in the service of a cause I believe to be right.

Yes, we know. Whether its slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, or any other form of racism, you southern conservatives are consistent.

 

[clownboy]

BrainDead (TV Series 2016– ) - IMDb