2016 elections - because it's never too early

[derspiess]

Exit polls showed that among non Trump voting republican primary voters, in a trump v hillary matchup 37% would want to go third party. Presumably an additional portion will be voting for Hillary. The party will somewhat fracture either way.

People say things like that in the heat of a primary.  The game will change once the general election campaign starts and people will look at things differently.  The question to me is not how many GOP voters will vote third party, but how many will just stay home and not vote.  Likewise, I wonder how much of Hillary's base will show up in the general.  Supposedly the black demographic is enthusiastic about her, but no way she comes close to the turnout Obama had in 2008 and 2012.  Could have a record low turnout in the 2016 general.

Of course I'll show up and vote because I'm a voting nerd.  My default position is still that I'm voting Libertarian (#feelthejohnson) but if I have to vote Trump in a close Ohio race so be it.  Annoying you guys with that scenario is a bonus.

Also, for all the theoretical controversy, in the second republican a candidate came in with a strong plurality on the first ballot (37%) and the nearest competitor was at 22%. On the second ballot, the guy with the plurality increased his vote from 37% to 40%. In the end, the nomination didn't go to the guy with the plurality (william seward), and instead went to a guy you may have heard of, Abraham Lincoln, who went on to be elected president.

Mind. blown.

[Capetan Mihali]

With Trump banned from entry into the UK, the residents of Ohio eagerly await their letters from Guardian readers, but they haven't materialized, AFAIK.   RIP snail mail.

[celedhring]

Also, for all the theoretical controversy, in the second republican a candidate came in with a strong plurality on the first ballot (37%) and the nearest competitor was at 22%. On the second ballot, the guy with the plurality increased his vote from 37% to 40%. In the end, the nomination didn't go to the guy with the plurality (william seward), and instead went to a guy you may have heard of, Abraham Lincoln, who went on to be elected president.

Okay, you definitely picked my interest in there. I gather slavery was a big issue at that convention?

[derspiess]

With Trump banned from entry into the UK, the residents of Ohio eagerly await their letters from Guardian readers, but they haven't materialized, AFAIK.   RIP snail mail.

Oh please, oh please.  Do it, Guardian readers!  Write me a letter and tell me who I should vote for.  Because that won't backfire at all.

[Eddie Teach]

Also, for all the theoretical controversy, in the second republican a candidate came in with a strong plurality on the first ballot (37%) and the nearest competitor was at 22%. On the second ballot, the guy with the plurality increased his vote from 37% to 40%. In the end, the nomination didn't go to the guy with the plurality (william seward), and instead went to a guy you may have heard of, Abraham Lincoln, who went on to be elected president.

Okay, you definitely picked my interest in there. I gather slavery was a big issue at that convention?

They were all against.

[alfred russel]

Also, for all the theoretical controversy, in the second republican a candidate came in with a strong plurality on the first ballot (37%) and the nearest competitor was at 22%. On the second ballot, the guy with the plurality increased his vote from 37% to 40%. In the end, the nomination didn't go to the guy with the plurality (william seward), and instead went to a guy you may have heard of, Abraham Lincoln, who went on to be elected president.

Okay, you definitely picked my interest in there. I gather slavery was a big issue at that convention?

According to wikipedia, the republicans felt confident they would win the northeast as the opposition was in disarray. Seward was the most prominent republican, so he came in with a plurality. But carrying the west was considered important, and Lincoln was from what was then the west, so he was considered especially electable (seward was from the east). Plus his supporters apparently flipped the Pennsylvania delegation from Seward by promising a cabinent position, which Lincoln apparently didn't approve of (but the guy got his cabinent position anyway).

[Phillip V]

Yeah, it's funny how all the proponents of a "brokered convention" fail to acknowledge that "stealing" the nomination for Trump will cause his constituency to rebel (and possible cause Trump to run as an independent). I guess it all boils down to what the GOP establishment wants more - saving face by not nominating Trump - or getting a chance to win elections and save the GOP from falling apart.

He's still not getting many majorities(and Rubio dropping out isn't gonna change that). There's gonna be lots of pissed off Republican primary voters either way.

Where did your Trump 50%+ vote expectation come from in a 4+ person primary?  Romney did not get 50% in remaining contests until April 24, 2012 two weeks after Rick Santorum dropped out.

Exit polls of Republicans last night show a majority of them would be "satisfied" with Trump as nominee regardless of their first choice.

[celedhring]

Also, for all the theoretical controversy, in the second republican a candidate came in with a strong plurality on the first ballot (37%) and the nearest competitor was at 22%. On the second ballot, the guy with the plurality increased his vote from 37% to 40%. In the end, the nomination didn't go to the guy with the plurality (william seward), and instead went to a guy you may have heard of, Abraham Lincoln, who went on to be elected president.

Okay, you definitely picked my interest in there. I gather slavery was a big issue at that convention?

According to wikipedia, the republicans felt confident they would win the northeast as the opposition was in disarray. Seward was the most prominent republican, so he came in with a plurality. But carrying the west was considered important, and Lincoln was from what was then the west, so he was considered especially electable (seward was from the east). Plus his supporters apparently flipped the Pennsylvania delegation from Seward by promising a cabinent position, which Lincoln apparently didn't approve of (but the guy got his cabinent position anyway).

Okay, I had wondered if there was some kind of appeasement vs abolitionism dialectic at play during the convention, but it seems it was just plain electability. Thanks for explaining.

[The Minsky Moment]

Does the Constitution say anything about someone under indictment not being able to serve as president?

No
But I wouldn't worry.  Trump has good counsel, he'll probably steer clear of any indictments.

[Eddie Teach]

A simple majority being "satisfied" is a pretty low bar.

[derspiess]

According to wikipedia, the republicans felt confident they would win the northeast as the opposition was in disarray. Seward was the most prominent republican, so he came in with a plurality. But carrying the west was considered important, and Lincoln was from what was then the west, so he was considered especially electable (seward was from the east). Plus his supporters apparently flipped the Pennsylvania delegation from Seward by promising a cabinent position, which Lincoln apparently didn't approve of (but the guy got his cabinent position anyway).

Yeah, Lincoln apparently promised a lot of jobs to people without him knowing.  Apparently had too many people show up in his office after he was elected and couldn't place them all -- "too many pigs for the teats" as he said.

[Phillip V]

A simple majority being "satisfied" is a pretty low bar.

A simple majority of Sanders supporters would be "dissatisfied" with Clinton as the nominee.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/exit-polls-voters-split-on-supporting-eventual-nominee-220797

[Eddie Teach]

That story doesn't appear to give the same stat for non-Trump voters, but if he's getting 40% of the votes and 57% of all voters would be satisfied with him as the candidate, that appears to be about 2/3 of the other candidates' voters being dissatisfied.

[alfred russel]

According to wikipedia, the republicans felt confident they would win the northeast as the opposition was in disarray. Seward was the most prominent republican, so he came in with a plurality. But carrying the west was considered important, and Lincoln was from what was then the west, so he was considered especially electable (seward was from the east). Plus his supporters apparently flipped the Pennsylvania delegation from Seward by promising a cabinent position, which Lincoln apparently didn't approve of (but the guy got his cabinent position anyway).

Yeah, Lincoln apparently promised a lot of jobs to people without him knowing.  Apparently had too many people show up in his office after he was elected and couldn't place them all -- "too many pigs for the teats" as he said.

To say it another way, his people bought him the nomination with checks that overdrew the nation's bank account. Definitely not the first time in history that happened to a leader.

I read that apparently it may not be illegal to outright bribe delegates to vote for the preferred nominee. As in, with actual cash. Apparently a process that has been sitting idle and unupdated for the better part of a century may have some kinks to work out.

Btw, Tim, remember how when I said Trump was not on pace for the nomination because he was under 50% in the delegates, and you said he was because of the 538 tracker? Well, the 538 tracker now shows him off that pace too. I wonder why you didn't post that.

[Eddie Teach]

Btw, Tim, remember how when I said Trump was not on pace for the nomination because he was under 50% in the delegates, and you said he was because of the 538 tracker? Well, the 538 tracker now shows him off that pace too. I wonder why you didn't post that.

Very suspicious.