Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,353
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 7, 2020 20:19:30 GMT -5
Thank goodness Bloomberg is out. For a while, it looked like he really could purchase the nomination. I hope Bloomburg helps the eventual Democratic nominee purchase the presidential election.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 8, 2020 8:53:10 GMT -5
Thank goodness Bloomberg is out. For a while, it looked like he really could purchase the nomination. I hope Bloomburg helps the eventual Democratic nominee purchase the presidential election. I don't know.... If the presidential election is purchased this year, then doesn't that set it up to be purchased every year? I'm just not comfortable with that. Whoever spends the most money gets the job? What about ability and policy? Where do they come into play then? We already have too much money in the election process. I'd rather see it contained than added to.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,432
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 8, 2020 13:49:25 GMT -5
I hope Bloomburg helps the eventual Democratic nominee purchase the presidential election. I don't know.... If the presidential election is purchased this year, then doesn't that set it up to be purchased every year? I'm just not comfortable with that. Whoever spends the most money gets the job? What about ability and policy? Where do they come into play then? We already have too much money in the election process. I'd rather see it contained than added to.
It is up to voters to not allow it to be bought.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 8, 2020 18:24:17 GMT -5
I don't know.... If the presidential election is purchased this year, then doesn't that set it up to be purchased every year? I'm just not comfortable with that. Whoever spends the most money gets the job? What about ability and policy? Where do they come into play then? We already have too much money in the election process. I'd rather see it contained than added to.
It is up to voters to not allow it to be bought. really it is up to congress and the courts. but since both have failed, yes. the practical upshot is that the voter is our last line of defense against our democracy being sold to the highest bidder.
forgive me for not being especially reassured about that.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,432
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 8, 2020 18:52:21 GMT -5
It is up to voters to not allow it to be bought. really it is up to congress and the courts. but since both have failed, yes. the practical upshot is that the voter is our last line of defense against our democracy being sold to the highest bidder.
forgive me for not being especially reassured about that.
No, really it is up to voters since they elect Congress which passes the laws the courts enforce.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 8, 2020 18:56:17 GMT -5
really it is up to congress and the courts. but since both have failed, yes. the practical upshot is that the voter is our last line of defense against our democracy being sold to the highest bidder.
forgive me for not being especially reassured about that.
No, really it is up to voters since they elect Congress which passes the laws the courts enforce. most voters favor restrictions on this sort of thing, so I am thinking that congress' failure to act is more their fault than ours.
but I get your point.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,372
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 9, 2020 10:41:20 GMT -5
really it is up to congress and the courts. but since both have failed, yes. the practical upshot is that the voter is our last line of defense against our democracy being sold to the highest bidder.
forgive me for not being especially reassured about that.
No, really it is up to voters since they elect Congress which passes the laws the courts enforce. With the increased use of executive orders, Congress is practically neteured. Just a bunch of ball-less lap-dogs now.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,432
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 9, 2020 11:44:55 GMT -5
No, really it is up to voters since they elect Congress which passes the laws the courts enforce. With the increased use of executive orders, Congress is practically neteured. Just a bunch of ball-less lap-dogs now. With no push back on executive orders, "...Congress is practically neteured. Just a bunch of ... lap-dogs now." I think an excellent example is the declaration of emergency that President Trump used to allow for transfer of funds for construction of the wall. A vote was taken to declare it a non-emergency that did not pass. It was the perfect time for Congress to say, "We control the purse strings and will fund it when you convince us it is necessary."
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,372
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 9, 2020 14:08:19 GMT -5
With the increased use of executive orders, Congress is practically neteured. Just a bunch of ball-less lap-dogs now. With no push back on executive orders, "...Congress is practically neteured. Just a bunch of ... lap-dogs now." I think an excellent example is the declaration of emergency that President Trump used to allow for transfer of funds for construction of the wall. A vote was taken to declare it a non-emergency that did not pass. It was the perfect time for Congress to say, "We control the purse strings and will fund it when you convince us it is necessary." We went from a three legged stool to a two-party us v them system over the past 20 years. That is so very bad.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,353
|
Post by Tennesseer on Mar 9, 2020 15:36:45 GMT -5
I hope Bloomburg helps the eventual Democratic nominee purchase the presidential election. I don't know.... If the presidential election is purchased this year, then doesn't that set it up to be purchased every year? I'm just not comfortable with that. Whoever spends the most money gets the job? What about ability and policy? Where do they come into play then? We already have too much money in the election process. I'd rather see it contained than added to.
When I say 'purchase', I mean paying for television and print ads to help elect the eventual Democratic nominee become president.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 9, 2020 17:55:42 GMT -5
I don't know.... If the presidential election is purchased this year, then doesn't that set it up to be purchased every year? I'm just not comfortable with that. Whoever spends the most money gets the job? What about ability and policy? Where do they come into play then? We already have too much money in the election process. I'd rather see it contained than added to.
When I say 'purchase', I mean paying for television and print ads to help elect the eventual Democratic nominee become president. I understand that, but Bloomberg showed just how much of the election he could purchase with ads before he dropped out. No, he didn't become the nominee, but her sure moved up that ladder pretty quickly. Does that mean that someone with a little popularity, i.e. Biden or Sanders, could truly purchase the election? Does that set a standard that has to be met by the other side in the next election? Are we going to be even more inundated with political ads next time? Will the best candidate be able to get financial ad support? I agree with djAdvocate above that we've already created our monster by who we vote into office now. I just wonder where and when it will stop.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,432
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 9, 2020 19:04:22 GMT -5
With no push back on executive orders, "...Congress is practically neteured. Just a bunch of ... lap-dogs now." I think an excellent example is the declaration of emergency that President Trump used to allow for transfer of funds for construction of the wall. A vote was taken to declare it a non-emergency that did not pass. It was the perfect time for Congress to say, "We control the purse strings and will fund it when you convince us it is necessary." We went from a three legged stool to a two-party us v them system over the past 20 years. That is so very bad. I see two different issues. The Executive Branch v. Legislative Branch goes back a lot further than 20 years. I think that the 2000 challenged election is significant for the partisan divide.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,372
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 9, 2020 20:05:09 GMT -5
When I say 'purchase', I mean paying for television and print ads to help elect the eventual Democratic nominee become president. I understand that, but Bloomberg showed just how much of the election he could purchase with ads before he dropped out. No, he didn't become the nominee, but her sure moved up that ladder pretty quickly. Does that mean that someone with a little popularity, i.e. Biden or Sanders, could truly purchase the election? Does that set a standard that has to be met by the other side in the next election? Are we going to be even more inundated with political ads next time? Will the best candidate be able to get financial ad support? I agree with djAdvocate above that we've already created our monster by who we vote into office now. I just wonder where and when it will stop. Campaign spending has always been a factor. Advertising has always been powerful. It is why the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision made such an impact on our country. Now there is basically unlimited spend for all candidates at every level. Unfortunately, the Republicans organized that effort and spending better and faster than Democrats. D's are way, way behind in buying elections.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 10, 2020 8:38:15 GMT -5
I understand that, but Bloomberg showed just how much of the election he could purchase with ads before he dropped out. No, he didn't become the nominee, but her sure moved up that ladder pretty quickly. Does that mean that someone with a little popularity, i.e. Biden or Sanders, could truly purchase the election? Does that set a standard that has to be met by the other side in the next election? Are we going to be even more inundated with political ads next time? Will the best candidate be able to get financial ad support? I agree with djAdvocate above that we've already created our monster by who we vote into office now. I just wonder where and when it will stop. Campaign spending has always been a factor. Advertising has always been powerful. It is why the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision made such an impact on our country. Now there is basically unlimited spend for all candidates at every level. Unfortunately, the Republicans organized that effort and spending better and faster than Democrats. D's are way, way behind in buying elections. I care less about who started it and more about how can we change it? I don't believe someone who is running on a platform of financial limitations in elections will get enough coverage to be voted into office. That bothers me. It's much easier to review local candidates and it gets more difficult as you go up the ladder. I'd love to see meaningful advertising limits, along with term limits, but I doubt I'll ever see them.
|
|
deminmaine
Administrator
Politics admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:01:55 GMT -5
Posts: 13,146
|
Post by deminmaine on Mar 10, 2020 8:51:01 GMT -5
Campaign spending has always been a factor. Advertising has always been powerful. It is why the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision made such an impact on our country. Now there is basically unlimited spend for all candidates at every level. Unfortunately, the Republicans organized that effort and spending better and faster than Democrats. D's are way, way behind in buying elections. I care less about who started it and more about how can we change it? I don't believe someone who is running on a platform of financial limitations in elections will get enough coverage to be voted into office. That bothers me. It's much easier to review local candidates and it gets more difficult as you go up the ladder. I'd love to see meaningful advertising limits, along with term limits, but I doubt I'll ever see them. Sometimes the states need to lead. We have made progress towards that in Maine with Clean Elections legislation and recently with legislation to slow the revolving door between legislating and lobbying. More needs to be done, and none of this affects federal elections, but it gives us some blueprints to follow and monitor and improve upon. As more states step up eventually the national politics would have to play catch up too. I admit, this is a long game. Will it show tangible results nationally in our lifetime? Probably not, but it is more manageable on the state level, and could eventually even pull the DC dimwits along. In the meantime, vote Blue, change the SC, and throw out Citizen's United! That too is a big step in the right direction, or should I say the correct direction?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,372
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 10, 2020 18:10:37 GMT -5
Campaign spending has always been a factor. Advertising has always been powerful. It is why the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision made such an impact on our country. Now there is basically unlimited spend for all candidates at every level. Unfortunately, the Republicans organized that effort and spending better and faster than Democrats. D's are way, way behind in buying elections. I care less about who started it and more about how can we change it? I don't believe someone who is running on a platform of financial limitations in elections will get enough coverage to be voted into office. That bothers me. It's much easier to review local candidates and it gets more difficult as you go up the ladder. I'd love to see meaningful advertising limits, along with term limits, but I doubt I'll ever see them. We either need to overturn CU, or make a constitutional amendment. I doubt either will happen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 10, 2020 18:18:29 GMT -5
I understand that, but Bloomberg showed just how much of the election he could purchase with ads before he dropped out. No, he didn't become the nominee, but her sure moved up that ladder pretty quickly. Does that mean that someone with a little popularity, i.e. Biden or Sanders, could truly purchase the election? Does that set a standard that has to be met by the other side in the next election? Are we going to be even more inundated with political ads next time? Will the best candidate be able to get financial ad support? I agree with djAdvocate above that we've already created our monster by who we vote into office now. I just wonder where and when it will stop. Campaign spending has always been a factor. Advertising has always been powerful. It is why the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision made such an impact on our country. Now there is basically unlimited spend for all candidates at every level. Unfortunately, the Republicans organized that effort and spending better and faster than Democrats. D's are way, way behind in buying elections. there is actually a clear unwillingness to play that game on the part of Democrats, as well.
and that makes sense, given the demographics of their average voter in comparison.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 10, 2020 18:19:12 GMT -5
I care less about who started it and more about how can we change it? I don't believe someone who is running on a platform of financial limitations in elections will get enough coverage to be voted into office. That bothers me. It's much easier to review local candidates and it gets more difficult as you go up the ladder. I'd love to see meaningful advertising limits, along with term limits, but I doubt I'll ever see them. We either need to overturn CU, or make a constitutional amendment. I doubt either will happen. not with the way things are going, certainly. I thought it might be possible a few years ago.
now we have Trump.
|
|
deadeyedick
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 22, 2019 10:05:22 GMT -5
Posts: 175
|
Post by deadeyedick on Mar 11, 2020 5:32:18 GMT -5
Trump will lose the popular vote, by an even greater margin, and still secure the presidency. His win in the electoral college 2016 was not small.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,432
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 11, 2020 7:01:15 GMT -5
Trump will lose the popular vote, by an even greater margin, and still secure the presidency. His win in the electoral college 2016 was not small. The 2016 presidential election was very close. Donald Trump’s 306 to 232[1] Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton obscures just how competitive the race was. It was so close, in fact, that seemingly every news source reported that just roughly 80,000 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin swung the election. This figure comes from totaling the margins in these three states that, had Clinton won them, would have flipped the election. Clinton would have won 278 Electoral College votes to Trump’s 260. link
|
|
ednkris
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 7, 2016 9:11:03 GMT -5
Posts: 1,176
|
Post by ednkris on Mar 11, 2020 7:19:11 GMT -5
Trump will lose the popular vote, by an even greater margin, and still secure the presidency. His win in the electoral college 2016 was not small. The 2016 presidential election was very close. Donald Trump’s 306 to 232[1] Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton obscures just how competitive the race was. It was so close, in fact, that seemingly every news source reported that just roughly 80,000 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin swung the election. This figure comes from totaling the margins in these three states that, had Clinton won them, would have flipped the election. Clinton would have won 278 Electoral College votes to Trump’s 260. link Well thank god it happened that way...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,134
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 11, 2020 14:23:47 GMT -5
The 2016 presidential election was very close. Donald Trump’s 306 to 232[1] Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton obscures just how competitive the race was. It was so close, in fact, that seemingly every news source reported that just roughly 80,000 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin swung the election. This figure comes from totaling the margins in these three states that, had Clinton won them, would have flipped the election. Clinton would have won 278 Electoral College votes to Trump’s 260. link Well thank god it happened that way... He sometimes allows evil to happen. He does not foist it upon us. No thanks are necessary.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 11, 2020 16:26:37 GMT -5
Trump will lose the popular vote, by an even greater margin, and still secure the presidency. His win in the electoral college 2016 was not small. yes it was. his margin of victory was the 13th smallest, and the smallest victory other than Bush in fourty years.
please stop repeating Trump tropes. it is very tiresome.
as to your first assertion, I will give you 3:1 odds on a $100 bet that won't happen. I would go higher on the odds, but I generally don't pay anything over 3:1 without specifics, and in your case 1 vote would be "greater".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 11, 2020 16:27:33 GMT -5
The 2016 presidential election was very close. Donald Trump’s 306 to 232[1] Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton obscures just how competitive the race was. It was so close, in fact, that seemingly every news source reported that just roughly 80,000 voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin swung the election. This figure comes from totaling the margins in these three states that, had Clinton won them, would have flipped the election. Clinton would have won 278 Electoral College votes to Trump’s 260. link Well thank god it happened that way... stop lessening my belief in God, please.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Mar 11, 2020 16:55:26 GMT -5
Well thank god it happened that way... stop lessening my belief in God, please. Wasn’t God choosing Trump to be POTUS enough?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 17, 2020 14:21:49 GMT -5
the head to head matchup polls have been pretty good for Biden for the last 3 weeks. there is only one poll which shows him with less than a 9% lead, and it was the YouGov poll. but that poll should be kinda distressing for him (for you Trump fans).
the other thing worth watching is that Biden is getting incrementally stronger in some key states. in Arizona he has gone from being slightly behind to slightly ahead. in Michigan he has not trailed in ANY polls so far this year. Trump is running surprisingly well in Wisconsin (it's a dead heat, but Biden's more recent numbers look better). The pollsters there may have adjusted their surveying to reflect their dismal failure in the last cycle. the Pennsylvania surveys also show him up, including (notably) the YouGov survey done on March 8th, which was pretty negative for him in other places, and nationally.
other than Wisconsin, Biden now should worry about Florida as well, where his numbers are steadily falling.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Mar 17, 2020 15:40:23 GMT -5
I hope Bloomburg helps the eventual Democratic nominee purchase the presidential election. I don't know.... If the presidential election is purchased this year, then doesn't that set it up to be purchased every year? I'm just not comfortable with that. Whoever spends the most money gets the job? What about ability and policy? Where do they come into play then? We already have too much money in the election process. I'd rather see it contained than added to.
Who becomes our next POTUS is really dependent on who votes for him / her, electorial college naturally in that consideration...to just condemn someone because they have been successful in acquiring wealth makes no srnse to me unless that wealth was acquired by illegal means...drug sales etc...in the past , the Al Capon way.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 18, 2020 7:06:40 GMT -5
I don't know.... If the presidential election is purchased this year, then doesn't that set it up to be purchased every year? I'm just not comfortable with that. Whoever spends the most money gets the job? What about ability and policy? Where do they come into play then? We already have too much money in the election process. I'd rather see it contained than added to.
Who becomes our next POTUS is really dependent on who votes for him / her, electorial college naturally in that consideration...to just condemn someone because they have been successful in acquiring wealth makes no srnse to me unless that wealth was acquired by illegal means...drug sales etc...in the past , the Al Capon way. I'm not condemning anyone for acquiring wealth. I'm discussing the sadness of having a "bought" election. I really don't think that was the intention of our founding fathers.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,039
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 8, 2020 10:58:50 GMT -5
Biden has never lead by less than 4% and is now up by 6% in head to head polls.
the betting Odds had Trump as the 60% favourite earlier this year, but he fell below 50% probability on March 11th, and has not gone over 50%, yet. Biden briefly lead him on March 18th and 23rd. he was +2.5% this morning, but still trailing, 49-44%.
the long, ugly 2020 presidential campaign begins today.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Apr 8, 2020 11:12:19 GMT -5
Biden has never lead by less than 4% and is now up by 6% in head to head polls. the betting Odds had Trump as the 60% favourite earlier this year, but he fell below 50% probability on March 11th, and has not gone over 50%, yet. Biden briefly lead him on March 18th and 23rd. he was +2.5% this morning, but still trailing, 49-44%. the long, ugly 2020 presidential campaign begins today.sadly, the bolded is correct. My almost 12 year old is so happy for the mute button on tv. She's taken to counting the political commercials when we have live tv on. What's odd about it is that she's watching cooking shows. I wouldn't have thought that the campaigns would be so focused/targeted on cooking shows.
|
|