[akwoo]

hrothgar, on 2015-December-13, 06:37, said:

Many states do use "winner take all" primaries.

I believe that there is a relationship between the date of the primary and the option to use a winner takes all format.
(Early primaries need to use proportional allocations. Later ones do no)

Aha - a summary is available at http://frontloading....allocation.html

Many states are "proportional unless someone wins a majority".

[barmar]

Even if his 35% poll numbers aren't enough to win any particular primary if it were held today, there's also the likelihood that some of the candates with low numbers are going to drop out fairly early. But then it remains to be seen how this will affect the polls.

[billw55]

awm, on 2015-December-13, 12:25, said:

The one thing that's a bit scary in US politics is that we're a two-party system and party allegiance and tribalism run very strong these days. So if Trump gets the nomination, it's likely that he will receive most of the Republican vote in the general (i.e. "sane" Republicans who vote against Trump in the primary will still fall in line behind him for the general). This gets him close enough to winning that a last-minute scandal for the democratic candidate or a minor economic downturn (often blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the president's party) could win him the presidency.

I can hardly imagine a scandal that would cause an otherwise democrat voter to vote for Trump.

Let's remember that polls and votes are different things. So far Trump has received lots of poll numbers, but exactly zero votes.

[kenberg]

The committed Dem will not vote for Trump or for any of the others. The committed Republican will not vote for Hillary or Bernie. However.

Winston mentioned the LBJ drubbing of Goldwater. We could also recall the Reagan drubbing of Carter and later Mondale, or the 1968 Nixon drubbing of McGovern four years after the 1964 drubbing of Goldwater.. The point being that not all voters are committed to vote by party. So a scandal does not have to cause Dems to vote for Trump/Cruz/etc, it would be, or might be, decisive if it caused those in the middle to either vote R or, more likely, to just throw up their hands and either not vote at all or to cast a write-in for Donald Duck (Sure, I voted for Donald (Duck, that is) ).

Actually I doubt that this is going to be decided by scandal. Who knows, but I doubt it. But the extent to which voters are really weary of the process could lead to some not well thought out votes.

Bright spot: Of course the most important thing about the recent climate agreement is the agreement itself. But it could be leveraged into electoral results. People might be willing to listen to the idea that serious people working together can actually accomplish something.

At any rate, I think the Dems need to stop blustering about how awful Trump is and start thinking about how to explain why their own leaders can do well. A hint: There was an article in the Washington Post this morning about how well the Cruz campaign is dong in identifying the concerns of individual voters in Iowa. Voters appreciate that.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2015-December-14, 08:07, said:

Bright spot: Of course the most important thing about the recent climate agreement is the agreement itself. But it could be leveraged into electoral results. People might be willing to listen to the idea that serious people working together can actually accomplish something.

At any rate, I think the Dems need to stop blustering about how awful Trump is and start thinking about how to explain why their own leaders can do well. A hint: There was an article in the Washington Post this morning about how well the Cruz campaign is dong in identifying the concerns of individual voters in Iowa. Voters appreciate that.

Ted Cruz is a very smart guy. And yes, Hillary would do well to heed your advice. She's probably too busy to read the water cooler these days but I feel sure someone on her campaign team gets this.

[Winstonm]

If form holds, voter turnout will be the key as to which party's candidate wins the Presidential election.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2015-December-14, 08:46, said:

Ted Cruz is a very smart guy. And yes, Hillary would do well to heed your advice. She's probably too busy to read the water cooler these days but I feel sure someone on her campaign team gets this.

Cruz is smart, for sure, but he cannot hide from his Tea Party affiliation, which, I hope is viewed by the general population as a negative too wildly out-of-touch with mainstream to be considered as a viable candidate for President. Except for a minority of far-right extremists, Cruz's leadership of the shutdown of the government is still viewed more as petulance than governance.

[y66]

Winstonm, on 2015-December-14, 10:38, said:

Cruz is smart, for sure, but he cannot hide from his Tea Party affiliation, which, I hope is viewed by the general population as a negative too wildly out-of-touch with mainstream to be considered as a viable candidate for President. Except for a minority of far-right extremists, Cruz's leadership of the shutdown of the government is still viewed more as petulance than governance.

Indeed. I left out bomb throwing whack job because that seemed more in keeping with kenberg's excellent advice. And, IMO, it is is a serious mistake, in this election cycle, to underestimate Senator Cruz or Marco Rubio or even Jeb Bush (who?) just because they are obviously incapable of governing wisely.

[billw55]

I'm not too worried. The early stages of primary races often bring out the fringe. But in the end someone more moderate is normally the winner (McCain, Romney). So far, I see the current cycle following the pattern.

[Phil]

Reasons to think Trump won't be the nominee:

Http://fivethirtyeig...nt-of-the-vote/

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2015-December-10, 18:46, said:

Or when criminals are shooting at you.

[kenberg]

While Wendy Cukier certainly has a point, it brings up the question of why doesn't this lead to action? Of course the NRA is powerful But there are other reasons as well.

I lead an approximately normal life. Like many others, the chance of me being shot by an assailant are very, very low. There are neighborhoods where this is not so, but I don't live there and I don't go there. In fact, if I did live there, I might well buy a gun.
Another way of putting this: The problem is not of direct impact on my life, and I am more than willing to admit that I am pretty ignorant of the challenges facing people in the neighborhoods that I stay out of.

I have never had a major car accident (the worst one was being rear-ended while I was stopped at a red light) but I recognize the danger and I (usually) fasten my seat belt. I regard being hit by another car as much more likely than being shot, and I regard neither as likely. So any interest I have in gun laws is for the benefit of other people, and this leads to two issues. First, I only have so much interest in helping others. Not zero, but not unlimited. Second, I am cautious about barging into a situation where my direct knowledge is very limited.

It seems we could start by being very tough on any use of guns for anything that is not clearly in self-defense. For example, if a burglar is caught with a gun, the presumption should be that he intends to use it and the penalty should reflect that intent. I think the law somewhat does this now, but I am not so sure about enforcement. If we could set a standard where most people feel, as I do, that their chance of being shot is very low, we might reduce the attractiveness of owning/carrying a gun. It should be pretty obvious that if you get into a gun battle one of two outcomes is likely. One, you get shot. Two, you shoot the other person and you go to jail for it. Neither is good for you. If we could get to the point where people can reasonably feel safe without a gun, it would be sensible to not have one or at least to keep it securely locked away.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2015-December-15, 07:12, said:

While Wendy Cukier certainly has a point, it brings up the question of why doesn't this lead to action? Of course the NRA is powerful But there are other reasons as well.

Indeed. One reason is that law abiding people, including those who do not own guns, don't like the idea of their rights being determined by criminals.

The NRA has about 5 million members. The USA has perhaps 200 million voters. Obviously, support for lawful gun ownership goes far beyond the NRA, or else this would have been settled in landslide votes long ago.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2015-December-15, 07:38, said:

Indeed. One reason is that law abiding people, including those who do not own guns, don't like the idea of their rights being determined by criminals.

The NRA has about 5 million members. The USA has perhaps 200 million voters. Obviously, support for lawful gun ownership goes far beyond the NRA, or else this would have been settled in landslide votes long ago.

The power of the NRA is that they represent 5 million registered voters who actually go out and vote. Politicians listen to that kind of influence.

[kenberg]

I want to change attitudes. Some gun owners I have known are very reasonable about many things including their guns. Others seem to be spoiling for a fight. Instead of "Given where I live, or where I work, I think it's good idea to get a gun for protection but I sure hope I never have to use it", it becomes "I got a gun. No worry. Someone bothers me, I'm ready". This latter is an extremely false sense of security, at least I think it is unless the person has undergone some very serious training. Even more worrisome, it leads him into troubles that he would shy away from if he had a more realistic idea of how a confrontation might well play out.

When we were in Yellowstone a few years back there was a warning video about what can happen to people who try to pose for pictures with a bison. To me it is not only strange that people do not heed the warning, but strange that they even need a warning. I think it is somewhat the same with guns. The gun toter has a very optimistic view of what will happen next.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2015-December-15, 13:52, said:

When we were in Yellowstone a few years back there was a warning video about what can happen to people who try to pose for pictures with a bison. To me it is not only strange that people do not heed the warning, but strange that they even need a warning. I think it is somewhat the same with guns. The gun toter has a very optimistic view of what will happen next.

Yes, but if the guy filming the bison has a gun then he is safe. Duh.

[Winstonm]

billw55, on 2015-December-15, 15:11, said:

Yes, but if the guy filming the bison has a gun then he is safe. Duh.

No, but if enough visitors to the park on the day that the filming is taking place have their guns with them, then he is safe.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2015-December-15, 17:10, said:

No, but if enough visitors to the park on the day that the filming is taking place have their guns with them, then he is safe.

That rather depends on how a good a shot they are...

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2015-December-16, 06:30, said:

That rather depends on how a good a shot they are...

Not according to the NRA - they say that gun availability is what keeps us safe.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2015-December-16, 09:30, said:

Not according to the NRA - they say that gun availability is what keeps us safe.

I suggest we throw a selection of loaded weapons into the chimpanzee cages of all American zoos then. That should further increase safety.