Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

If Trump wins the nomination, I'm going the write-in route.  I can never vote for Hillary, though she would be better than Trump.

Similarly, I enjoy the luxury of being to write in Bernie, and Massachusetts will nevertheless fall right in line behind The Inevitable (If As Yet Un-Indicted) One.  There'll be Klondike Bars in Hell before the Commonwealth votes for President Drumpf.

[drogulus]

     The disintegration of of the Repub party was preceded by the derangement of what is charitably called the Repub mind. There's an explanation for the Trump phenomenon and that's it. Repubs are no more clued in than anyone else about what it is to be "us" and not "them". The remnants of Repub leadership hate the frontrunner and hate the strongest challenger even more. Kasich and Rubio have strength in pinprick spots here and there, but they no longer matter. Cruz will not benefit from further winnowing of the field.

      What's said in private will soon be said in public. The movement of Repubs to Hillary is beginning and will pick up steam. The choice will be stay at home or vote for the Queen of Hell, an increasingly attractive choice in relative terms.

[Todd]

Similarly, I enjoy the luxury of being to write in Bernie, and Massachusetts will nevertheless fall right in line behind The Inevitable (If As Yet Un-Indicted) One.  There'll be Klondike Bars in Hell before the Commonwealth votes for President Drumpf.

Even if I lived in the Heart of Dixie, I would not be able to vote for Hillary.  Or Trump.

The headlines across the normal news sites I visit are reporting a variant of a Trump blowout or major victory.  While true, just as true is that his delegate count stands at 285.  If he can be kept to 1286 or fewer, an open convention is possible.

[Karl Henning]

The headlines across the normal news sites I visit are reporting a variant of a Trump blowout or major victory.  While true, just as true is that his delegate count stands at 285.  If he can be kept to 1286 or fewer, an open convention is possible.

Yes, a degree of hype for both El Tupé's and Clinton's victorious evenings.

If third place were occupied by Cruz, I should agree that he should drop out.  Do you think, Todd, that the race is better off with Rubio staying in, even with the ongoing dilution?  Even Kasich won 25 delegates yesterday, against Carson's eight . . . but I suppose it is too much to hope that Carson will drop out.  Kasich will hang on through to Ohio, one expects.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Similarly, I enjoy the luxury of being to write in Bernie, and Massachusetts will nevertheless fall right in line behind The Inevitable (If As Yet Un-Indicted) One.  There'll be Klondike Bars in Hell before the Commonwealth votes for President Drumpf.

You may write in Ludwig van Beethoven or Porky Pig for all you like, but your vote goes for nothing other than personal satisfaction. I have Republican friends in NY who are agonizing over their vote, as if NY ever went other than blue.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2016/03/01/president-donald-trump-likely-the-next-occupant-of-the-white-house

Money quote, as they say:

The truth is this: presidential elections are now fought and won in just seven states. The other 43 (with a few rare exceptions) are largely pre-ordained. States that vote Democratic or Republican in presidential elections have remained that way since John F. Kennedy's era. There have been only a handful of exceptions in states such as Indiana or North Carolina.

But those exceptions are rare. If the party's leadership supports their candidate (and I would argue that the GOP leadership will eventually swing in behind the Trump candidacy, because to fail to do so would end their party), then historical patterns and political data all show that the real presidential election is confined to just seven states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire.

And, based on recent Clinton vs. Trump head-to-head polls in these seven states and the likelihood that the white vote may increase in 2016, Trump is within striking distance of winning a general election against Clinton. For those who believe a Trump presidency is not really possible in today's America, you may want to re-think that proposition.

This is why the amendment to the Constitution I'd most like to see is to repeal the Electoral College and change to a popular vote.

[Karl Henning]

You may write in Ludwig van Beethoven or Porky Pig for all you like, but your vote goes for nothing other than personal satisfaction.

True enough.

Separetely:  the superdelegate apportionment from yesterday:

[(poco) Sforzando]

Capsule analysis from today's NY Times:

Donald J. Trump could lock the nomination in May if he keeps winning by the same margins. If all the candidates stay in, Mr. Trump could still win with just a third of the vote in remaining states. Ted Cruz could challenge Mr. Trump if all other candidates drop out soon. Marco Rubio could also win in a one-on-one race with Mr. Trump if the field narrows quickly.

If Hillary Clinton keeps winning with similar margins, Bernie Sanders won't be able to catch up.

Enjoy.

[Karl Henning]

Not sure enjoy is quite the right verb, but the good wishes are appreciated 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Not sure enjoy is quite the right verb, but the good wishes are appreciated 

It's what they tell you in a bad restaurant when they bring the food, as if it's a command and you have no choice. Good restaurants never have to say, "Enjoy!"

[Brian]

One of the many memes doing the rounds today suggests that Sanders is what the Democratic Party ought to be like, and Clinton is what the Republican Party ought to be like.

That would put us squarely in line with Europe, definitely. Unfortunately, it seems like about 18-20% of the American electorate (Trump and Cruz supporters) are embracing a political position which is not just anti-big government but anti-governance. If America had a multi-party parliamentary system, we might have 10% Europe-style leftists, 35% America-style leftists, 30% white-collar conservatives, 5% libertarians, and 15% far right loonies.

[drogulus]

     I doubt Trump can beat Hillary. If Repubs vote for Trump and Dems for Hillary she wins, if turnout is normal. It will not be normal. The Repub turnout will be weak. Evangelicals will be split with those who support Trump now voting for him and most of the Cruz supporters staying home or supporting a write in theocon. The establishment types will split among Trump, Hillary and stay home.

     Hillary will get all Dems minus a negligible fragment of HillHaters. She will get a good portion of the uncommited, both the low and high information centrists, and as a bonus she'll get more Repubs than anyone would have thought before Trump became inevitable.

     

     Yes, that's it exactly.
     

     

[Florestan]

This is why the amendment to the Constitution I'd most like to see is to repeal the Electoral College and change to a popular vote.

It baffles me, and not only me but all other non-US people here, I am sure, that such a simple and common-sense concept as let anyone run who wants and fulfills the constitutional requirements, and let the one who has at least 50% plus one of the votes win, or if none has, let the first two go to the run off needs a revolutionary and improbable amendment to the constitution in order to be implemented. 

[André]

It seems like political thinking in the US has more or less written off any thought of a constitutional amendment. You can't amend the political Bible (American Constitution) any more than you can eliminate one of the 66 Books.

............................................................................

Is there any chance of an independent candidate running ? Talks of a Bloomberg candidacy surface now and then. What would be the likely effect on the election ?

[Karl Henning]

It seems like political thinking in the US has more or less written off any thought of a constitutional amendment.

The mechanism for changing it makes it unlikely if the amendment is not widely popular.

The experience with Prohibition has, if anything, increased Americans' caution against amendments.

[Florestan]

The mechanism for changing it makes it unlikely if the amendment is not widely popular.

Are the Americans forever bound to move strictly within the limits of a markedly 18-th century-ish political concept, even if the religious, social and economical reality has changed beyond recognition since then? That is the question. 

[Karl Henning]

Well, the process to amend the Constitution can be changed . . . only by a Constitutional amendment.

Whether that's a forever thing . . . .

[Todd]

If third place were occupied by Cruz, I should agree that he should drop out.  Do you think, Todd, that the race is better off with Rubio staying in, even with the ongoing dilution?

I think so.  If Kasich wins Ohio and Rubio wins Florida, then the convention route appears set.  In most states, Trump seems to be hovering around a third of the vote, and in theory it would be easier for native sons to win in such a situation.  After Ohio and Florida, everyone but Rubio or Kasich would have to drop out.  (I guess I could say everyone but Cruz, but Cruz is as unpleasant a choice as Trump.)

Let's say an open convention happens: Who will the party regulars rally around?  Rubio seems the most palatable option, but that could force Cruz to align with Trump: Trump/Cruz 2016.

This is why the amendment to the Constitution I'd most like to see is to repeal the Electoral College and change to a popular vote.

You have as good a chance of winning the lottery in your lifetime as this happening.  Almost every small state would oppose it.  A constitutional convention would be needed for this to pass, and then it would be decided only by majoritarian steamrolling.

It seems like political thinking in the US has more or less written off any thought of a constitutional amendment.

Ideas for amendments are floated all the time.  A lot of the time, they are more for political show than any actual desire to get them passed, and they can take a long time to be ratified.  (The 27th took 202 years to be ratified.)  If there is enough enthusiasm for an idea, an amendment is possible.

Is there any chance of an independent candidate running ? Talks of a Bloomberg candidacy surface now and then. What would be the likely effect on the election ?

Time is running out for an independent to get in the race.  Bloomberg would probably hurt Clinton more than Trump, making the race even tighter. 

[Todd]

Are the Americans forever bound to move strictly within the limits of a markedly 18-th century-ish political concept

Americans have never been strictly bound by the Constitution. 

[(poco) Sforzando]

Americans have never been strictly bound by the Constitution.

Indeed, and never more so by our opera-loving late professed "originalist," who like any literary critic, decided what he wanted the Constitution to mean, and then forced the text to meet his interpretation.

[Florestan]

Americans have never been strictly bound by the Constitution.

Fair enough, my bad. I should have written "bound by the latest 5-people-out-of-9-majority interpretation of the Constitution". 

Indeed, and never more so by our opera-loving late professed "originalist," who like any literary critic, decided what he wanted the Constitution to mean, and then forced the text to meet his interpretation.

You beat me to it.