News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

ledboots said:
The caucus is so corrupt, I heard and believe that rumor, but have seen no real substantiation.
Click to expand...

I agree. The process of having people sit in different areas of a room to indicate their preferred candidate can lead to peer pressure influence as well as the tendency of people to want to be with a winner..so even if they were going to select candidate A, but see more people sitting in candidate B's section, they'll go over to candidate B's section.

That's why momentum and critical mass are so important in elections.

Don't even get me started about the electoral college.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF and ledboots
Look at this group. This is the best we can do? [emoji15]
8e5cc50a83183c655b7f7a1ffe96e69e.jpg
 
Looking at how the media are reporting this is quite surprising since surely the stand out news is Rubio's better than expected performance propelling him to clear overall favourite for Republican nomination and second favourite for President now. Not my views but those of people prepared to take bets on it professionally:

2016 Republican Presidential Candidate Betting Odds | Oddschecker

Looks like a three horse race now - Rubio, Trump, Cruz. Anyone else needs a major comeback at this point.
 
Last edited:
Marco Rubio is the only Republican candidate that I think can win in the general election. Trump and Cruz are too polarizing, and Jeb has a last name that no one likes. Also, he has the enthusiasm of a grapefruit.
 
beancounter said:
I agree. The process of having people sit in different areas of a room to indicate their preferred candidate can lead to peer pressure influence as well as the tendency of people to want to be with a winner..so even if they were going to select candidate A, but see more people sitting in candidate B's section, they'll go over to candidate B's section.
Click to expand...

I have attended quite a few caucuses, and I disagree. It doesn't appear that you fully understand how these work. Before you enter the room, you select the candidate of your choice. If you are undecided then you indicate that, but if say, I caucus for Bernie (as I did last night) then there is no switching sides. You walk into the room and you stand with the Bernie crowd, however big or small. Now, if / when it is determined that your candidate doesn't have enough supporters to qualify for a delegate (O'Malley in this case) at that point you can choose to side with another candidate. (Or not.) It is this time that the process of 'swaying' those voters comes into play. In a lot of cases, extra delegates hang in the balance with just a few extra people.

I do agree about the coin flip though - that rule needs to change. I am curious at how often this has been done over the years.
 
Spang said:
Marco Rubio is the only Republican candidate that I think can win in the general election. Trump and Cruz are too polarizing, and Jeb has a last name that no one likes. Also, he has the enthusiasm of a grapefruit.
Click to expand...

Marco is just as much a nutter as Cruz, but he seems to be managing to not come off as much of a moral crusader as Cruz does somehow (which is what makes me feel a little ill).
 
Dedalus said:
I have attended quite a few caucuses, and I disagree. It doesn't appear that you fully understand how these work. Before you enter the room, you select the candidate of your choice. If you are undecided then you indicate that, but if say, I caucus for Bernie (as I did last night) then there is no switching sides. You walk into the room and you stand with the Bernie crowd, however big or small. Now, if / when it is determined that your candidate doesn't have enough supporters to qualify for a delegate (O'Malley in this case) at that point you can choose to side with another candidate. (Or not.) It is this time that the process of 'swaying' those voters comes into play. In a lot of cases, extra delegates hang in the balance with just a few extra people.

I do agree about the coin flip though - that rule needs to change. I am curious at how often this has been done over the years.
Click to expand...

If you go to the caucus/enter with/stand in line with a group of people, you can be persuaded by peer pressure before you enter the room, and the potential influence on the minor candidates supporters still stands. What happens to the undecided? How can they even participate if they can't choose a candidate?

There is no comparison. Ballot voting significantly reduces the potential for influence making it a far superior method.

I believe there are thirteen caucuses. Have you attended all thirteen? How can you be certain they all operate the same way?
 
Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucus four years ago. Mike Huckabee won four years earlier. Remember their presidencies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Jeremy said:
Marco is just as much a nutter as Cruz, but he seems to be managing to not come off as much of a moral crusader as Cruz does somehow (which is what makes me feel a little ill).
Click to expand...

About a month ago, I saw a noticeable shift to the far right with his rhetoric in his TV ads. I'd be willing to bet he tones it way down for New Hampshire.

I remember several years ago when Palin visited NH. She used her "Yee Haw" cowboy persona at a Republican event - trying to stir things up and get the crowd going, but the NH Reps, to their credit, just sat there and stared at her. :rofl:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
beancounter said:
I remember several years ago when Palin visited NH. She used her "Yee Haw" cowboy persona at a Republican event - trying to stir things up and get the crowd going, but the NH Reps, to their credit, just sat there and stared at her. :rofl:
Click to expand...

I saw her on the British documentary about DT the other night and my jaw dropped. I'm not sure if I have ever really seen her speak as I have just read about her.
 
Top Bottom