US Presidential Election 2016 official thread

Original post by TheArtofProtest

Because companies have interests that need to be represented and safeguarded, just like the electorate who are allowed to donate to electoral campaigns?

One huge problem is that many corporations are deeply unethical and engaged in behaviour which whilst good for their shareholders, is highly detrimental to the customers or public.

For example, cigarette manufacturers, who keep their customers alive long enough to remain hooked and provide ample profits, then kill them. Or sugar drinks / fructose-based food manufacturers, who are spreading massive obesity and colonising and misshaping the human body for profits. Corporations like that are busy lavishing funds on Senators, Congressmen and, yes, presidential candidates. Does that strike you as a good system for a rational society to have?

Reply 823

TheArtofProtest

2

Original post by Aj12

But companies are not part of the electorate. If they want their interests represented then presumably they could use the well established lobbying route, Rather than buying candidates.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Lobbying is a reprehensible activity because it takes into account only one interest, that of the lobbyist. When you only have your own interests at mind, to the complete disregard of potential impact on other areas of life, then your society will become very fractured.

Having your interests represented, through campaign contribution funds, means that although your company stands to benefit, such benefits will be tempered by at least some consideration for the wider impacts on society.

I vehemently disagree with both lobbying and companies contributing to candidates/parties because I think governance should be about what's in the best interests of society but if I was forced to allow one of the two, I would ultimately choose companies contributing to candidates because candidates may not win and candidates may not always follow through on what they have been beholden to do.

Original post by Fullofsurprises

One huge problem is that many corporations are deeply unethical and engaged in behaviour which whilst good for their shareholders, is highly detrimental to the customers or public.

For example, cigarette manufacturers, who keep their customers alive long enough to remain hooked and provide ample profits, then kill them. Or sugar drinks / fructose-based food manufacturers, who are spreading massive obesity and colonising and misshaping the human body for profits. Corporations like that are busy lavishing funds on Senators, Congressmen and, yes, presidential candidates. Does that strike you as a good system for a rational society to have?

I happen to think that all companies should be gradually forced to become employee-owned but that doesn't change the fact that as it stands at the moment, it isn't.

Yes, corporations engage in policies detrimental to the health of the human but that is only because they are pressured to by the shareholders, who seek to manipulate the direction of the company from being socially conscious to that of a profit-driven nature. I have no issue with a company making profits, so long as it is for the benefit of the employees.

I digress somewhat, but I wanted to demonstrate to you that there is nothing inherently evil within a corporation and simply banning them from contributing will be a band-aid on a stab wound to the heart. What's needed is a change in corporate policy and as long as there are external stakeholders (i.e: shareholders) present, it will never come to pass.

Reply 824

TimmonaPortella

Anyone else watching the CBS GOP debate?

I will never cease to be amazed by how openly politicised the American judiciary is...

Reply 825

DoctorSchmosby

1

Welp, the GOP debates are really starting to get catty. I say we cancel the next one and just stick Trump and Cruz in a steel cage instead. Perhaps President Obama could organise it, since the idea that he doesn't know what he's doing is fiction - he knows exactly what he's doing.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 826

Some interesting polling in relation to the Carolina Republican race and where it could head over time.

So firstly in the short term Trump is around 20% ahead again so he's won here.

The polling though does highlight some important things for the future as the field gets smaller (hopefully by the time we get to the big states)..

44% Republicans identify as Conservative Republicans
22% Republicans identify as Moderate Republicans

That's two thirds of the party then (a plurality in both probably gets you the nomination so long as the national distribution is fairly similar).

.

So among Conservative Republicans we see the following for the moment..
Trump: 35%
Cruz: 20%
Bush: 13%
Rubio: 14%
Kasich: 5%

Among Moderate Republicans we see..
Trump: 31%
Cruz: 4%
Bush: 19%
Rubio: 20%
Kasich: 18%

So we see here for example that if this is close to the national picture then it's almost certain that Cruz and Kasich will not be the nominees. Their appeal in the big groups is simply not broad enough. Even if we saw some votes from other candidates pulling out go to them, it seems unlikely that the quantity would be sufficient to really challenge Trump.

It seems clear to me (finances and will permitting) that if South Carolina Republicans are similar to the national picture then Bush or Rubio stand the best chance of stealing Trump's glory so long as we don't see many Cruz/Kasich votes headed to Trump.

The big question then is 'who do Cruz Conservatives and Kasich moderates want as their second preference'.

Reply 827

Original post by Rakas21

Some interesting polling in relation to the Carolina Republican race and where it could head over time.

So firstly in the short term Trump is around 20% ahead again so he's won here.

The polling though does highlight some important things for the future as the field gets smaller (hopefully by the time we get to the big states)..

44% Republicans identify as Conservative Republicans
22% Republicans identify as Moderate Republicans

That's two thirds of the party then (a plurality in both probably gets you the nomination so long as the national distribution is fairly similar).

.

So among Conservative Republicans we see the following for the moment..
Trump: 35%
Cruz: 20%
Bush: 13%
Rubio: 14%
Kasich: 5%

Among Moderate Republicans we see..
Trump: 31%
Cruz: 4%
Bush: 19%
Rubio: 20%
Kasich: 18%

So we see here for example that if this is close to the national picture then it's almost certain that Cruz and Kasich will not be the nominees. Their appeal in the big groups is simply not broad enough. Even if we saw some votes from other candidates pulling out go to them, it seems unlikely that the quantity would be sufficient to really challenge Trump.

It seems clear to me (finances and will permitting) that if South Carolina Republicans are similar to the national picture then Bush or Rubio stand the best chance of stealing Trump's glory so long as we don't see many Cruz/Kasich votes headed to Trump.

The big question then is 'who do Cruz Conservatives and Kasich moderates want as their second preference'.

It's crazy that Trump is leading by a two figure margin in both groups.

Reply 828

Original post by Josb

It's crazy that Trump is leading by a two figure margin in both groups.

Is it?

His position on abortion is less extreme than others in the race.
His position on defense is no different.
His position on healthcare is speculated to be less extreme than others in the race.

People here look at his Muslim policy (supported by a majority of Democrats and likely supported in the UK) and his Mexico policy (the more idiotic policy if you ask me) and think him crazy but actually he's not some rabid right winger overall and i can see why he has broad support.

That being said i think that by the end the moderates will probably give a plurality to Bush or Rubio if it goes down to two. The question is where Cruz voters will go in the Conservative camp..

Reply 829

Original post by Rakas21

Is it?

His position on abortion is less extreme than others in the race.
His position on defense is no different.
His position on healthcare is speculated to be less extreme than others in the race.

People here look at his Muslim policy (supported by a majority of Democrats and likely supported in the UK) and his Mexico policy (the more idiotic policy if you ask me) and think him crazy but actually he's not some rabid right winger overall and i can see why he has broad support.

That being said i think that by the end the moderates will probably give a plurality to Bush or Rubio if it goes down to two. The question is where Cruz voters will go in the Conservative camp..

I know that. What I mean is that even Cruz or Bush cannot challenge him in their own backyard.

Reply 830

Original post by Josb

I know that. What I mean is that even Cruz or Bush cannot challenge him in their own backyard.

True.

My guess is that Trump's appeal while broad is mainly from those in each camp who dislike the establishment and bought politicians (better to let Trump line his own pockets than the pockets of another 100 CEO's) and indeed if true then it's concerning that there's so much dislike of the establishment in each group. The other candidates are all primarily the establishment and so until people drop out you won't see a proper challenge unless there's a state with a super biased electorate to one type of Republican.

Reply 831

Original post by Rakas21

True.

My guess is that Trump's appeal while broad is mainly from those in each camp who dislike the establishment and bought politicians (better to let Trump line his own pockets than the pockets of another 100 CEO's) and indeed if true then it's concerning that there's so much dislike of the establishment in each group. The other candidates are all primarily the establishment and so until people drop out you won't see a proper challenge unless there's a state with a super biased electorate to one type of Republican.

Apparently, even in Florida, where Bush and Rubio are from, Trump leads by more than 20 points.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-florida-presidential-republican-primary

The suspense isn't with the Republican primaries imo.

Reply 832

Original post by Josb

Apparently, even in Florida, where Bush and Rubio are from, Trump leads by more than 20 points.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-florida-presidential-republican-primary

The suspense isn't with the Republican primaries imo.

Right now i agree that Trump will pretty much sweep the board. Things only get more interesting if candidates start dropping and we get Bush or Rubio as the contender against Trump.

Reply 833

Original post by DoctorSchmosby

Welp, the GOP debates are really starting to get catty. I say we cancel the next one and just stick Trump and Cruz in a steel cage instead. Perhaps President Obama could organise it, since the idea that he doesn't know what he's doing is fiction - he knows exactly what he's doing.

You missed the last part of the quote. Here is the missing part:

"...since the idea that he doesn't know what he's doing is fiction - he knows exactly what he's doing. ...since the idea that he doesn't know what he's doing is fiction - he knows exactly what he's doing. ...since the idea that he doesn't know what he's doing is fiction - he knows exactly what he's doing."

Reply 834

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Rakas21

Right now i agree that Trump will pretty much sweep the board. Things only get more interesting if candidates start dropping and we get Bush or Rubio as the contender against Trump.

We should always approach these primary polls with caution, they have been proven to be well wide of the mark in the past, especially in long list elections like the Republican one, although I agree Trump seems superficially to be on top.

Watching him spar with Bush in that ridiculous shouting match they just held, I can't help still wondering though if Jeb isn't going to come through. He just seems somehow more presidential than Trump or any of the others and in all previous battles, that has been the crucial 'it' factor.

Reply 835

anarchism101

17

Original post by Rakas21

Right now i agree that Trump will pretty much sweep the board. Things only get more interesting if candidates start dropping and we get Bush or Rubio as the contender against Trump.

We're into a bit of a blind spot with polling after South Carolina, as there hasn't been much regular polling in the other states. My guess is that in states that haven't polled since December/early January, Cruz has probably had a slight boost, and that will matter on Super Tuesday when several Deep South states favourable to Cruz vote - particularly if he really piles up the vote in Texas.

Reply 836

HucktheForde

hi everyone just in here for a silly question.

Is joe biden ever going to have a chance to become the nominee now that the caucus has already begun? Didn't joe biden announce that he is not going to run for the president?

curious cause just saw joe biden to become the democratic nominee was 25 on the betting market.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 837

Original post by HucktheForde

hi everyone just in here for a silly question.

Is joe biden ever going to have a chance to become the nominee now that the caucus has already begun? Didn't joe biden announce that he is not going to run for the president?

curious cause just saw joe biden to become the democratic nominee was 25 on the betting market.

I wouldn't bet on Biden. No. :biggrin:

Reply 838

HucktheForde

Original post by Josb

I wouldn't bet on Biden. No. :biggrin:

what i meant is if joe biden has no chance of becoming the presidential candidate why are bookies pricing him up. surely it means he still has a chance but i thought he said he wont be running.

Reply 839

nulli tertius