PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spicey says Ivanka and Linda McMahon to promote small businesses today at some talk. Clearly great choices for that topic.
 
I had heard that the republicans had a beautiful health care plan that would use the free market to destroy socialism and lower premiums and improve coverage while lowering taxes. When it passed, it would make Barack Obama feel sad for rejecting Donald Trump's overtures at friendship and prove to the world that Donald Trump is a Winner. Said plan was enormously popular and would pass this week.

I can only conclude that the reports that it doesn't have enough votes are FAKE NEWS
 
Suikoguy said:
Have there been any cases of someone losing a primary only to become president in a later election?
Click to expand...

Reagan is probably the most famous case. He launched a primary challenge against Gerald Ford in 1976 that went to the Convention. Bush 41 also ran in the 1980 primary. Off the top of my head there's also LBJ, who ran in 1960. Of course, the primary process was very different back then.
 
Suikoguy said:
This... might not be a bad idea.

It reduces whynot-runs. People that are running to promote a book, or just for publicity. On the other hand, it may make the primaries more viscous since it's all or nothing.

Have there been any cases of someone losing a primary only to become president in a later election?
Click to expand...
I think this is the opposite of true. We'd have nothing but a single serious contender, a gaggle of why-nots looking to move books, and a couple of spoilers willing to do whatever it takes. All the other serious hopefuls would get pushed out by whoever gathers the most support before the primary, the book sellers don't really care if they get barred from then on 'cause they got what they were looking for, and what you'd have left were the outsiders and ideologues who don't really give a damn about the procedures or health of the party. It'd be 2016 every 4 years.
 
Spicer downplaying any expectation of a healthcare bill passing this week. Stressing that Trump isn't concerned with a timeline.
 
A rule on blocking people from running again seems unnecessary, the only candidates who've lost a primary then come back to win are Gore and Hillary, both of whom cleared the field in the invisible primary so they lacked a serious challenger. Biden, Hart, Jackson (he would've won tho), Gephardt, and Kucinich also ran multiple times and all did worse the second time (except Jackson) because they faced serious competition and clearly couldn't cut it the first time. If we just kept the primary field open and made the invisible primary less powerful then it probably wouldn't matter because mediocre candidates wouldn't be able to skate by on a lack of competition.
 
Dan said:
Spicer downplaying any expectation of a healthcare bill passing this week. Stressing that Trump isn't concerned with a timeline.
Click to expand...

The story of 2018: Republicans are coming after your health care and WILL NOT QUIT until they take it away. If you want to keep coverage, there is only one way to stop them.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
A rule on blocking people from running again seems unnecessary, the only candidates who've lost a primary then come back to win are Gore and Hillary, both of whom cleared the field in the invisible primary so they lacked a serious challenger. Biden, Hart, Jackson (he would've won tho), Gephardt, and Kucinich also ran multiple times and all did worse the second time (except Jackson) because they faced serious competition and clearly couldn't cut it the first time. If we just kept the primary field open and made the invisible primary less powerful then it probably wouldn't matter because mediocre candidates wouldn't be able to skate by on a lack of competition.
Click to expand...
(This is pretty explicitly designed to prevent Gore/Hillary situations.)
 
Rebel Leader said:
Did he just blame obama for not having a budget for this year?
Click to expand...
Kinda. They're spinning any iota of conservative benefit in this budget extension as a huge win, because they never should have had a chance to contribute.
 
Poodlestrike said:
I think this is the opposite of true. We'd have nothing but a single serious contender, a gaggle of why-nots looking to move books, and a couple of spoilers willing to do whatever it takes. All the other serious hopefuls would get pushed out by whoever gathers the most support before the primary, the book sellers don't really care if they get barred from then on 'cause they got what they were looking for, and what you'd have left were the outsiders and ideologues who don't really give a damn about the procedures or health of the party. It'd be 2016 every 4 years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the risk of backfire would be too much. Not worth the risk for a fairly small reward.

kirblar said:
(This is pretty explicitly designed to prevent Gore/Hillary situations.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the counterargument.

Bonen no Max'd said:
A rule on blocking people from running again seems unnecessary, the only candidates who've lost a primary then come back to win are Gore and Hillary, both of whom cleared the field in the invisible primary so they lacked a serious challenger. Biden, Hart, Jackson (he would've won tho), Gephardt, and Kucinich also ran multiple times and all did worse the second time (except Jackson) because they faced serious competition and clearly couldn't cut it the first time. If we just kept the primary field open and made the invisible primary less powerful then it probably wouldn't matter because mediocre candidates wouldn't be able to skate by on a lack of competition.
Click to expand...

Honestly, after that shit-show of a primary the GOP had, they should implement it before Democrats. Did people think having 13 people on stage was a good look?
 
kirblar said:
(This is pretty explicitly designed to prevent Gore/Hillary situations.)
Click to expand...

I'd need to read more about this idea, but my initial impression is that it's a pretty roundabout way of accomplishing that objective and probably would have a fair number of unintended consequences. It also strikes me as undemocratic.
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
A better way to prevent that would be to just weaken the power of the invisible primary and just leave the field open so bad candidates have real challengers imo
Click to expand...
You keep talking about arbitrarily "weakening" institutions repeatedly, but even if you "break things up", power has a gravitational pull. It'll just re-establish somewhere else. It's an absurdly naive concept.
Box of Kittens said:
I'd need to read more about this idea, but my initial impression is that it's a pretty roundabout way of accomplishing that objective and probably would have a fair number of unintended consequences. It also strikes me as undemocratic.
Click to expand...
So is an invisible primary! :) It's also not a state election, it's a party election.
 
Suikoguy said:
This... might not be a bad idea.

It reduces whynot-runs. People that are running to promote a book, or just for publicity. On the other hand, it may make the primaries more viscous since it's all or nothing.

Have there been any cases of someone losing a primary only to become president in a later election?
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan.
 
LOL Spicer said Trump's gas tax comment was merely "out of respect" and he won't support it.
 
It's a terrible idea. What if obama lost in 08? He almost did. Can't worry about what the GOP does.
 
Y2Kev said:
It's a terrible idea. What if obama lost in 08? He almost did. Can't worry about what the GOP does.
Click to expand...
We'd have 8 years of fearmongering about Jeremiah Wright. He wouldn't be president. (But of course, he beat Hillary!) Giving the GOP tagets to take potshots and prime their audience on for nearly a decade isn't a good idea.
 
I'm mostly concerned right now with Trump trying to sabotage the ACA which he seems more interested in doing right now. It will hurt his base but I don't trust them to blame him for it.
 
sangreal said:
Obama made a deal with Paul Ryan on a budget too

Trump called them losers for it
Click to expand...

Is the only reason that Ryan is getting away with this terrible (from Trump/Freedom Caucus perspective) deal that there's no one in the House who could replace him? How many of these kinds of deals can he get away with?
 
Teggy said:
I'm mostly concerned right now with Trump trying to sabotage the ACA which he seems more interested in doing right now. It will hurt his base but I don't trust them to blame him for it.
Click to expand...

People need to quit worrying about his 'base'.
The issue is what moderate Republicans, independents, Obama/Trump voters and where enthusiasm levels are.
 
Opening the field seems obvious. The challenge is in not opening it to the degree that you get Trump. The GOP specifically had the opposite problem that we had.
 
kirblar said:
So is an invisible primary! :) It's also not a state election, it's a party election.
Click to expand...

Sure, I don't much care for the invisible primary. Just my initial reaction to this idea is skepticism since I don't see the invisible primary as necessarily being tied in to having run previously.

And, yes, parties are private entities are have a lot of latitude to set their own rules. That doesn't mean that it isn't troubling when parties take undemocratic actions. It would have been completely within the rules for the superdelegates to make Sanders the nominee (or have done the same for Clinton in 2008). That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been a problem if they had. I don't like that you would be effectively barring someone from ever becoming president just because they ran in a primary before.

Y2Kev said:
It's a terrible idea. What if obama lost in 08? He almost did. Can't worry about what the GOP does.
Click to expand...

This too. You're unnecessarily tying your hands. Maybe someone just didn't have enough clout to stop whoever won the first time around (maybe due to the invisible primary!) If that person is an ideal candidate now, why not let them run?
 
AntraxSuicide said:
Opening the field seems obvious. The challenge is in not opening it to the degree that you get Trump. The GOP specifically had the opposite problem that we had.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's finding a balance.
It makes for some interesting discussion, as there is no obvious answer.
 
Suikoguy said:
People need to quit worrying about his 'base'.
The issue is what moderate Republicans, independents, Obama/Trump voters and where enthusiasm levels are.
Click to expand...

I guess the problem is if providers start dropping out and/or raising premiums due to uncertainty, is there going to be more ammo to make a deal.
 
We're tying our hands because literally every time we've tried an also-ran candidate that wasn't a sitting president we've lost!

Dems want new hotness. Not old and busted. It's an issue this corrects for.
 
Trump was a way better candidate than the rest of the clown car and I think he could have won regardless

but having so many candidates doesn't really make sense at the Presidential level. The President should be implementing the party's platform so ideally there shouldn't be much policy daylight between the candidates. The diversity of ideas should be baked in at the lower levels
 
New Yorker: How Trump Could Get Fired
This article from the New Yorker is really interesting, especially this section:
the Twenty-fifth Amendment was added to the Constitution in February, 1967. Under Section 4, a President can be removed if he is judged to be "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." The assessment can be made either by the Vice-President and a majority of the Cabinet secretaries or by a congressionally appointed body, such as a panel of medical experts. If the President objects—a theoretical crisis that scholars call "contested removal"—Congress has three weeks to debate and decide the issue. A two-thirds majority in each chamber is required to remove the President. There is no appeal.

However, the definition of what would constitute an inability to discharge the duties of office was left deliberately vague. Senator Birch Bayh, of Indiana, and others who drafted the clause wanted to insure that the final decision was not left to doctors. The fate of a President, Bayh wrote later, is "really a political question" that should rest on the "professional judgment of the political circumstances existing at the time." The Twenty-fifth Amendment could therefore be employed in the case of a President who is not incapacitated but is considered mentally impaired.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Pence is shrewd and ambitious enough to mount a political coup. It wouldn't be as absurd as Trump getting elected in the first place.
 
C-wwoGtW0AEbIsX.jpg:large
 
kirblar said:
Ban people from running in multiple Dem primaries. There's step one.
Click to expand...

That seems like a very bad idea. It would drastically lower the people willing to run and would make the Party machine even bigger kingmakers. Would Obama even have run in 2008 if this rule were in place? He was so young, would he have risked his one and only shot at being President running against Clinton?

The chilling effect would be profound and even if you got rid of Superdelegates entirely, pre-Primary endorsements would have massive power.

Such a rule would usher in a ton of Trump-esque hucksters with nothing to lose. National celebrity would become more important than ever. Experience and intelligence would be driven away. I would humbly ask you to come back with a step one that wouldn't almost immediately destroy the party and the country.
 
kirblar said:
We'd have 8 years of fearmongering about Jeremiah Wright. He wouldn't be president. (But of course, he beat Hillary!) Giving the GOP tagets to take potshots and prime their audience on for nearly a decade isn't a good idea.
Click to expand...

8 years of fearmongering Obama as President didn't hurt his popularity. If Obama lost in 2008 and became a VP, he would've run again in 2016 against an incumbent Romney.
 
Joe said:
New Yorker: How Trump Could Get Fired
This article from the New Yorker is really interesting, especially this section:

I wonder if Pence is shrewd and ambitious enough to mount a political coup. It wouldn't be as absurd as Trump getting elected in the first place.
Click to expand...

The Democrats in Congress wouldn't go along with it. As much as they hate Trump, they're not exactly getting a big win by replacing him with Pence, and they lose the leverage a deeply unpopular President gains them in the midterms. So Trump objects, it goes to Congress, Dems say, "nah, he seems fit as a fiddle to us," end of story. And Pence would be replaced immediately, so that's just shooting himself in the foot.
 
kirblar said:
We're tying our hands because literally every time we've tried an also-ran candidate that wasn't a sitting president we've lost!

Dems want new hotness. Not old and busted. It's an issue this corrects for.
Click to expand...

You're basing this on, what, n=2? Dukakis was a fresh face. And a lot of what gave Gore and Hillary big profiles was their ties to the Bill Clinton administration. Should we bar former vice presidents from running? I'd rather put it up to the voters on a case-by-case basis. The problem was clearing the field for a flawed candidate, not that said candidate had run before.

I have no idea what to do about the invisible primary, or even that anything can be done realistically. I just don't see this as being the solution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT2| Fractured but Ox
166 167 168 169 170
8K
548K
Hideous Snake replied
Formula 1 2017 Season |OT2| A Dutch Horror Story - Sundays on Sky
54 55 56 57 58
3K
342K
Grieves replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom