. . Sorry, meant Las Vegas Debate. My two questions: 1) Which candidate will be taking the most jabs at Bloomberg (who made the cut)? 2) What delicious food will @crandc be preparing for the event?!
Not doing debate watch party this time, there are three debates in February. Stay tuned for next debate. And prediction game winner.
Well, none from Trump. In terms of the dem party, hard to say, but he could effectively become a Ross Perot type.
Based on what? I think quite a few Republicans who dislike Trump but would never vote for most Democrats would be quite attracted to Bloomberg as a candidate. He's more right-wing than left-wing, he's a war hawk, he's what conservatives consider to be a "law and order" politician and he doesn't have the kind of weird outbursts that cause some Republicans/conservatives not to like Trump. I don't think it's at all clear whether he'd take more votes from Trump or the eventual Democratic nominee. Most likely, he'd take some from both and the overall impact wouldn't be hugely significant.
I could very well be wrong, but what I'm saying is, if they're planning to vote for Bloomberg, they'd vote for him whether he were a Democrat or Independent. If Bloomberg remained a Democrat, and somehow won the nomination, it would simply be him against Trump. Conversely, if ran as an Independent, it would be him and the Democrat nominee against Trump, thereby, potentially splitting some votes and effectively helping Trump. Some think Ross Perot cost George Sr. a 2nd term. (But, in that instance, he took Bush votes.)
If Bloomberg ran as an Independent he would get boat raced. Total non factor like we usually see with an Independent, unfortunately
Yes, I don't think that makes sense. If Bloomberg ran as an independent, first of all he'd be distancing himself from the Democratic party, which would make him much more palatable to disenchanted Republicans. He's more akin to Republicans than he is to Democrats, so he makes a natural place for "Never Trumpers" (who are Republicans) to go, considering they don't want to vote for a Democrat. Considering that most people view votes for a third party to be wasted, an independent really mostly only makes sense for people who would be tempted to just not vote otherwise and therefore use the independent as a "protest vote." Democrats will largely be motivated to actually vote to unseat Trump, so very few of them are "weren't going to vote anyway." Ditto the vast majority of Republicans in wanting to keep their president in power. Most of the people who are usually voters but are likely unenthused to vote right now are Republicans who don't like Trump but also don't like Democrats. They're the ones most likely to "throw away" a vote on an independent.
Or, not vote at all. At any rate, Bloomberg will have to be focused on by the other Democratic candidates, which will, in effect, take some focus off of Trump.
I don't think there is going to be a way to take the focus off Trump. Either you love him or you hate him. He wants all that focus either way.
True, but now the other Dem candidates are going to have to contend with fighting off the surging Bloomberg. Any way you look at it, he's gaining attention...in waves. Just look at CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and the like. He's suddenly the talk of the town. Now, that said, he may flame-out like a firecracker. But, for now, he's on everyone's proverbial radar.
I am not questioning the validity of that statement but I hate this so much. It's like brainwashing on a mass scale that if you don't vote for one of these two crappy parties you're throwing your vote away. The GOP / DNC have convinced so many people of that, just to keep any viable third party from trampling on their political power. It's so frustrating. It's a vicious cycle of well no third party is strong enough to garner support, because everyone is told you vote for them and your vote is a waste and you don't matter, so people continue to vote for the two parties because in their mind it "makes their vote matter", and then two parties can say well look I told you those third parties weren't viable, and round and round it goes. Then when a side loses an election they tend to blame third party candidates and those who voted for them for it saying well, if you didn't vote for this person and voted for my person we wouldn't have "x" as president, so anything bad that president does is now just as much on you as the people who actually voted for that president. Then in here, I keep hearing the train of thought well, there really aren't many independents they all end up voting one way most of the time, well of course they do, because they've been told over and over that hey you "have to" or you might as well not vote, then if they don't vote it's, "well your voice really doesn't matter because you didn't vote". It's all just crap for the two controlling political parties to stay in power. I don't buy into that line of thought at all, I should vote for someone I don't want to win, just because someone else might win I didn't want to win. I'm going to vote for a third-party candidate, or write in for who I think would do the best job that isn't apart of those two parties of corruption whether people like it or not. The reason, why I won't ever vote for either a GOP or DNC nominee, is I don't think those parties at all care about anything else other than their own gain, they sold the American people out and I think if you represent them, you're part of it. I hope voters stop letting them bully their way into votes so we can have a legitimate third party with new ideas, and new ways for us to progress as a country. Rant mode disengaged...
I hear ya...but I think it may take 2 or 3 consecutive elections with viable Independent candidates so more people can get used to the idea before voting for them in strong enough numbers to really make a difference. But until then, I believe there are just too many people who have the same attitude you mentioned. (voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote) What I'm saying is, it's takes awhile to gradually win people over to a new way of thinking.
I know, and I don't expect a third party to jump up and win, but the viability is so "beaten down" by the mantra the large parties have thrown out. I'm annoyed thinking about it.
I couldn't agree more with your comments about throwing your vote away by voting for independent candidates. What's really throwing your vote away is giving it to the turd candidates that the two major parties keep feeding us.
It's not the Republicans and Democrats to blame for this--it's a reality based on our electoral system (forgetting about even the Electoral College for a moment). In a first-past-the-post system, all that matters is reaching 51% in one vote. In such a system, this situation is guaranteed to happen. First of all, you can't have more than two viable parties when most (even if not all) people identify across a conservative/liberal spectrum. If a new party were to emerge, it would be seen as either more liberal or more conservative. A more liberal party would split votes with the existing liberal party, dooming both. A more conservative party would split votes with the existing conservative party...dooming both. The only stable situation is one major party for each ideology. Second of all, once you're in that situation, a voter who doesn't like either party is faced with a choice: vote for a third party they like more but has no chance at winning or vote for one of the two big parties that is closer to what they believe and has a chance of winning. The first option represents them better. The second option gives them some voice in government. It's a tough choice and most people take the second option because they want some say. There are other, better systems. Like run-off votes, where you hold the first vote with all the candidates and then hold a second vote with just the two top vote-getters. That removes the above choice: someone who doesn't like either of the two big parties can vote for whomever they like in the first vote, allowing third parties to slowly gain a base of support, and then vote for whichever of the two big parties aligns closer to their views in the run-off. They get to express their real choice and get representation in who eventually runs things. And maybe one day, one of those third parties will be among the top two vote-getters. There are other systems, like ranked choice voting. Plus, of course, parliamentary systems, which tend to be friendlier to smaller parties because it's not all or nothing when it comes to a leader--all sorts of parties can, and often do, have some representatives in parliament and it often takes coalitions of parties to create a controlling bloc. Obviously, a parliamentary system isn't going to happen in the US in the foreseeable future. But blame our system for independents and third parties being viewed as "wastes of a vote." Because, in our system, they are wasted votes if you want a voice in who's in control.
No Rep would ever support Bloomberg. He's a cowardly racist, gun-grabbing, misogynistic, Anti-American, anti-industrial globalist warmonger facist who openly purchases positions of power to feed his overt sadism.
