Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
I was not talking about a sort of hypothetical parliamentary system involving Trump/Clinton/Sanders. What I was referring to was a hypothetical system where multiple parties are contending for the presidency, and the numbers I gave were either for the popular vote or for the electoral college.

Meaning that when you have a multi-party election, a Trump-like figure needs even less support to gain power than he does under a 2 party system.
Click to expand...

No, wrong. They will only get the votes of those who actually agree with them, not the ones who think they are the least of two evils.

We have been doing this in several countries in Europe, and while it's certainly not perfect, it tends to keep the extremists away from power. And it forces the non-extremists to seek compromise, even if only to have some influence.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
No, wrong. They will only get the votes of those who actually agree with them, not the ones who think they are the least of two evils.

We have been doing this in several countries in Europe, and while it's certainly not perfect, it tends to keep the extremists away from power. And it forces the non-extremists to seek compromise, even if only to have some influence.

Hans
Click to expand...
I don't see it happening here.

I imagine 10 parties running.
9 of them close to each other in outlook, and each drawing a %9.95 share of the vote.

The 10th party is a single issue party. Flat Earthers.
They draw %10.45 every time.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Meaning that when you have a multi-party election, a Trump-like figure needs even less support to gain power than he does under a 2 party system.
Click to expand...
No, wrong. They will only get the votes of those who actually agree with them, not the ones who think they are the least of two evils.
Click to expand...
He may only get the people who actually agree with him, but the pool of people who oppose him are now divided among multiple candidates too.

If the 2016 presidential election had a viable 3rd party candidate, it would not necessarily mean that Trump would have lost. There is a very good chance that they would have siphoned support off BOTH candidates (possibly even affecting Clinton more).
We have been doing this in several countries in Europe, and while it's certainly not perfect, it tends to keep the extremists away from power.
Click to expand...
Yet as has been pointed out by myself and others, Boris Johnson managed to get into power, despite being seen as a more pasty-faced Trump. And he did so getting less than 50% of the vote.
 
Trebuchet said:
That would be the US Military that can't build ANYTHING in less than 15 or 20 years.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it is more along the lines of defense contractors eternally needing another 6-month appropriation to have a finalized design ready. Then another one to have a prototype. Then a few more to make tweaks to some design flaws. Then just a little more (well, "little") to host a fancy demonstration gala. Oh dear, we've run into some production issues. You can't withhold another appropriation Mx. Senator from Utah, some obscure parts we're using in this thing come from a little factory in your district. Would be a shame to tell all those workers you hung them out to dry like this...

Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
Distracted1 said:
I don't see it happening here.

I imagine 10 parties running.
9 of them close to each other in outlook, and each drawing a %9.95 share of the vote.

The 10th party is a single issue party. Flat Earthers.
They draw %10.45 every time.
Click to expand...

If you're talking parliamentary style, then all that has to happen is two of the closely aligned parties agree to a supply-and-confidence agreement.

I think the bigger distinguishing element than bicameral/executive (U.S.) vs. Parliamentary is how robust the party landscape is. Those parliamentary bodies where there are two clearly dominant parties have similar risk of putting a populist/demagogue in power.

A big factor that influences that is whether parties are a highly centralized model or a distributed/confederated model. In the mid-20th century, the U.S. was more of a regional coalition type of setup. The Eastern Establishment, the Solid South, the Midwest Moderates, etc. Winning national elections meant building a coalition out of these regional groups.

At the same time, while parties may look a lot tighter on an organizational flowchart nowadays, the rise of Leadership PACS, SuperPACS, and other "dark money" means parties have less carrots and sticks to enforce any discipline. Someone independently financed (self or unnamed others) can walk in and ignore party proscriptions, rebuff all attempts at "alignment of goals" or however it might get put, and hijack a whole party.

So we both centralized the party command structures while also leaving them vulnerable to being overthrown and repurposed.
 
U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data

Chapter 12 filings spiked 20% in 2019.

The increase in cases had been somewhat expected, bankruptcy experts and agricultural economists said, as farmers face trade battles, ever-mounting farm debt, prolonged low commodity prices, volatile weather patterns and a fatal pig disease that has decimated China’s herd.

Even billions of dollars spent over the past two years in government agricultural assistance has not stemmed the bleeding.

Nearly one-third of projected U.S. net farm income in 2019 came from government aid and taxpayer-subsidized commodity insurance payments, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Click to expand...

I'm all for supporting our family farms, don't get me wrong.

However, I wonder how many of them frequently talk about their bootstaps and the folly of giving people "free stuff."
 
Segnosaur said:
He may only get the people who actually agree with him, but the pool of people who oppose him are now divided among multiple candidates too.

If the 2016 presidential election had a viable 3rd party candidate, it would not necessarily mean that Trump would have lost. There is a very good chance that they would have siphoned support off BOTH candidates (possibly even affecting Clinton more).

Yet as has been pointed out by myself and others, Boris Johnson managed to get into power, despite being seen as a more pasty-faced Trump. And he did so getting less than 50% of the vote.
Click to expand...

UK is NOT typical of Europe.

But, it would all take some time to get used to.

Hans
 
Delphic Oracle said:
U.S. farm bankruptcies hit an eight-year high: court data
...
I'm all for supporting our family farms, don't get me wrong.

However, I wonder how many of them frequently talk about their bootstaps and the folly of giving people "free stuff."
Click to expand...
I have to admit, I find it hard to find sympathy for the American Farmer, given the fact that they tend to be very supportive for Trump. (His approval rating is currently around 83%).

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/f...hest-approval-rate-ever-in-ag-poll-2020-01-19

In 2016, they supported a racist who was not only going to harm other people, he was going to harm THEM. And they KNEW what he was going to be like before he was elected (The idea of tariffs did not spring up after he was sworn in.) And after he was elected, they are STILL supporting him, after he got involved in a trade war which cut into agricultural sales.

So, I say let them suffer.
 
Segnosaur said:
I have to admit, I find it hard to find sympathy for the American Farmer, given the fact that they tend to be very supportive for Trump. (His approval rating is currently around 83%).

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/f...hest-approval-rate-ever-in-ag-poll-2020-01-19

In 2016, they supported a racist who was not only going to harm other people, he was going to harm THEM. And they KNEW what he was going to be like before he was elected (The idea of tariffs did not spring up after he was sworn in.) And after he was elected, they are STILL supporting him, after he got involved in a trade war which cut into agricultural sales.

So, I say let them suffer.
Click to expand...


"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know...morons. "
 
Segnosaur said:
He may only get the people who actually agree with him, but the pool of people who oppose him are now divided among multiple candidates too.

If the 2016 presidential election had a viable 3rd party candidate, it would not necessarily mean that Trump would have lost. There is a very good chance that they would have siphoned support off BOTH candidates (possibly even affecting Clinton more).

Yet as has been pointed out by myself and others, Boris Johnson managed to get into power, despite being seen as a more pasty-faced Trump. And he did so getting less than 50% of the vote.
Click to expand...

He was helped a lot by the main opposition having a leader who people liked even less then Boris.
Democrats please take note.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom