There are some parallels between Donald Trump and Theodore Roosevelt. Not part of the Republican establishment, aggressive, a showman, working relentlessly with the media, campaigning for the little guy against big business.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
You are however talking as if this were a unified political system where there can be one electoral plan imposed from the centre. This is a federal system with each state deciding itself when and how it should choose it's delegates. Anyone who sought to tread on States' toes would, I think, find themselves in a world of pain.
Sure, I recognise the practical difficulties. That said, the EU states manage to hold a single election for the European parliament with just two polling days and with no count beginning before the polls have closed on the second day, so agreement must be possible if the will was there.
What surprises me is that there isn't more pressure from inside the system; that voters are happy to go along with caucuses when other states have primaries, that late states are happy for their votes not to count in effect - and so on.
I've always thought that the privilege that Iowa and New Hampshire have is probably unconstitutional under equal protection of the laws yet no-one seems bothered by it. Their call, I guess.
Agreement is always possible if the will is there - whether in constitutional arrangements, IR disputes or marital problems.
I suspect the EU has, effectively, no traditions in its political arrangements whereas US citizens are taught to fetishize their constitution from a very early age.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
You are however talking as if this were a unified political system where there can be one electoral plan imposed from the centre. This is a federal system with each state deciding itself when and how it should choose it's delegates. Anyone who sought to tread on States' toes would, I think, find themselves in a world of pain.
Sure, I recognise the practical difficulties. That said, the EU states manage to hold a single election for the European parliament with just two polling days and with no count beginning before the polls have closed on the second day, so agreement must be possible if the will was there.
What surprises me is that there isn't more pressure from inside the system; that voters are happy to go along with caucuses when other states have primaries, that late states are happy for their votes not to count in effect - and so on.
I've always thought that the privilege that Iowa and New Hampshire have is probably unconstitutional under equal protection of the laws yet no-one seems bothered by it. Their call, I guess.
Primaries are presumably rather expensive for the state/party involved to run as well; another reason why you'd think they'd want them to be as early as possible to be more meaningful.
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
The idea of Boris becoming London Mayor before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him .....
I think I would draw a distinction between choosing the desirability of a bendy bus and being PM
Johnson is probably more qualified than Cameron was when he became party leader and ultimately PM. I suspect that you were one of the many lambasting the latter politician's qualifications for office, citing his only experience as being the bag carrier for Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday.
I don't care much for Boris, but when the alternative is the smirking Osborne, it's not a tricky choice as to which one to vote for.
Yep! But I can think several candidates who aren't Boris or George. In fact though it pains me to say it the Tories are quite blessed with potential leaders at the moment
Well my Trump bet on Texas did not come through. Overall, he has not done as well as expected but he has still probably done well enough.
Rubio's last chance is his own Florida but he is so far underwater. He really should give up.
Hillary will also be slightly disappointed albeit she has again probably done enough. On the popular vote she has clocked up some massive wins in the south which justifies the super delegates backing her. She is already more than half way there but Sanders is showing her weaknesses with the young, the less affluent and the more radical parts of the Democratic party.
Trump gets Democrats to turn out for Hillary though, doesn't he? I imagine that if Trump is the Republican candidate Bernie will give Hillary a very clear endorsement.
Sanders has already said Clinton would make a great president and would be a hundred times better than any Republican.
It will inch away again once the WTA states kick in. Had tonight been WTA rather than pseudo-proportional, Trump would have fairly comfortably outscored Cruz and Rubio, even with Cruz's Texas.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order. 2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field. 3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
He can afford to dismiss his fellow candidates and aim all his fire at Clinton. Which should prove popular with his party. And it is quite clear Hillary will do the same. The race for November starts here, although it has been a rather-less-than-Super Tuesday.
Agree with that analysis. Trump was talking about tax cuts for middle America tonight, his first sign of tracking toward the centre.
He will probably hold the big guns off Hillary for a couple of weeks, until he knows he'll be over the line, then she will have the proverbial forces of Hell rain down upon her. It's not going to be a very nice campaign, that is for sure.
Trump should now start getting a flood of backers.
Out of curiosity, do we know how much Trump spent for Super Tuesday? Did he do it on the cheap again, or has he started flashing the serious cash?
I don't know, but my understanding is that it's media buy that makes US elections so expensive.
With the acres of free coverage he's getting does Trump really need that?
What this shows is that the immediate reduction in the field to two candidates would have shafted Trump, even Kasich alone would have taken the shine off. Unfortunately nobody ever drops our when they enough votes to matter.
You can get odds of 7/2 on West Ham winning tonight - unbeaten in the PL at home since August and having the chance to stop Spurs going top of the PL in their last home derby against us...
Payet playing this time and our 3rd game since Thursday.
There are some parallels between Donald Trump and Theodore Roosevelt. Not part of the Republican establishment, aggressive, a showman, working relentlessly with the media, campaigning for the little guy against big business.
Thats like comparing Eddie the Eagle to Pele. Both sportsmen, but somewhat a gap in ability.
If he wanted world leaders not to scupper the Referendum, the time to do it would have been vetting Angela Merkel's "come on in, everybody" speech last year...
All that famous 'influence' we're told the UK has in the EU didn't seem able to stop Merkel's madness did it.
It didn't - and it continues to have none. Merkel remains defiant that "there is no Plan B..." Her position on this embodies the democracy deficit of the EU. The German leader says she will unilaterally open the EU's borders. The EU's democratically elected Governments cannot prevent her.
If he wanted world leaders not to scupper the Referendum, the time to do it would have been vetting Angela Merkel's "come on in, everybody" speech last year...
All that famous 'influence' we're told the UK has in the EU didn't seem able to stop Merkel's madness did it.
It didn't - and it continues to have none. Merkel remains defiant that "there is no Plan B..." Her position on this embodies the democracy deficit of the EU. The German leader says she will unilaterally open the EU's borders. The EU's democratically elected Governments cannot prevent her.
Surely not, why she was complaining about other leaders acting unilaterally just the other day and would definitely not be so hypocritical.
It will inch away again once the WTA states kick in. Had tonight been WTA rather than pseudo-proportional, Trump would have fairly comfortably outscored Cruz and Rubio, even with Cruz's Texas.
There are three phases with three roles to the primary campaign.
1. The early states. Their purpose is to clear the field of dead wood and produce a slate of credible candidates with a running order. 2. Super Tuesday and the non-WTA states: their job is to produce a clear leader in the field. 3. WTA states: their job is to push the leader over the line (or, if no clear leader has emerged, to produce one quickly and then push them over the line).
Trump's lead across so many demographics of Republican voters should be sufficient to give him a large majority of state wins and hence an overwhelming majority of delegates. He doesn't need to say anything else outrageous now, he can (and will) coast on a campaign which is still working pretty well for him, albeit one that didn't deliver a knock-out blow tonight as a best-case scenario would have.
He can afford to dismiss his fellow candidates and aim all his fire at Clinton. Which should prove popular with his party. And it is quite clear Hillary will do the same. The race for November starts here, although it has been a rather-less-than-Super Tuesday.
Agree with that analysis. Trump was talking about tax cuts for middle America tonight, his first sign of tracking toward the centre.
He will probably hold the big guns off Hillary for a couple of weeks, until he knows he'll be over the line, then she will have the proverbial forces of Hell rain down upon her. It's not going to be a very nice campaign, that is for sure.
Trump should now start getting a flood of backers.
Out of curiosity, do we know how much Trump spent for Super Tuesday? Did he do it on the cheap again, or has he started flashing the serious cash?
I don't know, but my understanding is that it's media buy that makes US elections so expensive.
With the acres of free coverage he's getting does Trump really need that?
You think Cruz's chance of becoming potus is less than 0.7%? I think that's a brave prediction. If the GOP/POTUS race between now and November were simulated 150 times, one of those times Cruz would walk into the white house. That's all I'm saying. Do you think it would take many more simulations? Is trump now *that* certain? Is Hillary *that* bulletproof?
So I don't want to make a judgment on whether Cruz has a chance or not, but I don't agree with this analysis. Elections are not like football games. If I back Laurent Koscielny for last goal scorer tonight at 25-1 I know that he should probably be something like a 50-1 shot. That is, roughly he'll score the last goal once if the game was rerun 50 times.
With elections, I think the result will be the result however many times you run it. When Mike puts up implied chance of something happening I don't think you can interpret it as "something like 30 times out of a hundred something will happen." Yes, there are unknowns and perhaps the FBI will move on Hillary or the GOP will stitch up Trump. But I don't think these variables can be treated like football matches.
An election is a much more complex event than a football match, though, with many more moving parts. We make it look simpler by reducing it to percentages because it's the only way to grasp it.
I think what you say is only true on strict determinism?
Stronger In The alternatives to EU membership proposed by Leave Campaigners would all hit UK businesses and families #StrongerIN https://t.co/u8sJ1VLhCY
So, Super Tuesday seems pretty much as expected, yes?
Miss Plato, do you happen to have that dog chap link to hand? Only a small thing, but the hound's being a bit ratty when it comes to having her paws wiped after a rainy walk, and I'd prefer to get her away from that.
The idea of Boris becoming Tory leader before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him even if that person turns out to be Corbyn.
The idea of Boris becoming London Mayor before the next election is terrifying. The only shaft of light is that it's likely to galvanize non Tories to get behind whoever is the opposition leader most likely to beat him .....
I think I would draw a distinction between choosing the desirability of a bendy bus and being PM
Johnson is probably more qualified than Cameron was when he became party leader and ultimately PM. I suspect that you were one of the many lambasting the latter politician's qualifications for office, citing his only experience as being the bag carrier for Norman Lamont on Black Wednesday.
I don't care much for Boris, but when the alternative is the smirking Osborne, it's not a tricky choice as to which one to vote for.
Yep! But I can think several candidates who aren't Boris or George. In fact though it pains me to say it the Tories are quite blessed with potential leaders at the moment
I think that's true though, as in the past, the best candidate(s) may be disqualified because of their views on the EU.
So, Super Tuesday seems pretty much as expected, yes?
Miss Plato, do you happen to have that dog chap link to hand? Only a small thing, but the hound's being a bit ratty when it comes to having her paws wiped after a rainy walk, and I'd prefer to get her away from that.
Why would any state schedule its primary for May/June in full knowledge that its vote will likely be irrelevant? Why not have ALL states (other than the traditional early ones) have their primary on Super Tuesday?
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
There are at least two good arguments against one single national primary. Firstly, they would tend to be dominated by money and/or name recognition - though Trump and Sanders both suggest this isn't quite as strong a tendency as might previously have been thought. Secondly, there'd be a large number of primary races either won on a very small share of the vote (say sub-25%), or in a brokered election, depending on the mechanics of the race.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
Primaries and Caucuses in an idiosyncratic order of States is indeed odd, but it does sort out the wheat from the chaff and generally produces a couple of good candidates. Trump, Cruz and Rubio are not to my taste, but I don't think that I am their target audience.
When you compare it with the system of how we come up with party leaders (Jezza, Farage, Ed Miliband, IDS, Brown, etc) it is not as daft as it seems.
Though not one of those leaders that you just mentioned ever became PM at an election*.
We like the Americans have a two-phase process to vet our potential leaders, first to become party leader and then to become the countries leader. So compare losers like IDS to losers like Dukakis. While if you put Farage in the list then compare to all the third party candidates America has had.
* Yes Brown became PM mid-term but some pretty shocking VP's have existed who could have done the same, even more have reached the general election like Sarah Palin.
Some pretty poor VPs *did* become president, none more so than Andrew Johnson.
Miss Plato, cheers. Nothing specific, but some general advice. As I say, it's not too serious but I'd rather nip it in the bud. In most other ways, she's improving.
There are some parallels between Donald Trump and Theodore Roosevelt. Not part of the Republican establishment, aggressive, a showman, working relentlessly with the media, campaigning for the little guy against big business.
That is true, although we shouldn't underestimate the differences too. Roosevelt was a career politician through and through, albeit one who only used party machines as and when it suited him. Trump, by contrast, has never been involved in elected or appointed politics in his life before now. A lesser distinction is that whereas Roosevelt was the youngest ever president, Trump, if elected, would be the oldest ever at first inauguration.
The US presidential election is an abomination to democracy, from non-secret caucus votes to large parts of the country having effectively no say in the choices of the parties, to the anachronism of the electoral college and so on.
I quite like the multi-round system which tests candidates in lots of different ways and in different parts of the country. Caucuses, however, serve no good purpose and should be done away with and a decent system would rotate the states in the calendar so as not to give much more weight to Iowa and NH than California (for example).
You are however talking as if this were a unified political system where there can be one electoral plan imposed from the centre. This is a federal system with each state deciding itself when and how it should choose it's delegates. Anyone who sought to tread on States' toes would, I think, find themselves in a world of pain.
Sure, I recognise the practical difficulties. That said, the EU states manage to hold a single election for the European parliament with just two polling days and with no count beginning before the polls have closed on the second day, so agreement must be possible if the will was there.
What surprises me is that there isn't more pressure from inside the system; that voters are happy to go along with caucuses when other states have primaries, that late states are happy for their votes not to count in effect - and so on.
I've always thought that the privilege that Iowa and New Hampshire have is probably unconstitutional under equal protection of the laws yet no-one seems bothered by it. Their call, I guess.
Agreement is always possible if the will is there - whether in constitutional arrangements, IR disputes or marital problems.
I suspect the EU has, effectively, no traditions in its political arrangements whereas US citizens are taught to fetishize their constitution from a very early age.
Certainly the constitution and flag are fetishized but the primary/caucus process is of recent vintage: a nationwide primaries calendar has only existed since the 1970s, for example. It also changes in some way each time so there ought to be some scope to settle on a better process but as I think we agree, the will isn't really there given the fuss that would be kicked up by those with a vested interest in how it stands now.
If he wanted world leaders not to scupper the Referendum, the time to do it would have been vetting Angela Merkel's "come on in, everybody" speech last year...
All that famous 'influence' we're told the UK has in the EU didn't seem able to stop Merkel's madness did it.
That could be said to apply equally to France's influence, or indeed any other country.
Comments
I suspect the EU has, effectively, no traditions in its political arrangements whereas US citizens are taught to fetishize their constitution from a very early age.
With the acres of free coverage he's getting does Trump really need that?
Payet playing this time and our 3rd game since Thursday.
I don't get those odds.
Fox are so grumpy and the others really don't like him.
Ouch.
2:1 is very similar to the ratio for Labour voters in many polls, except they are for Remain.
UKIP cancel out the various left of centre groups.
I can never tell these days from the Treasury what's good and what's bad, it's almost as if they make it up.
Rubio is an appalling bitter dickhead right now, he's needs shutting in a cupboard.
I think what you say is only true on strict determinism?
Stronger In
The alternatives to EU membership proposed by Leave Campaigners would all hit UK businesses and families #StrongerIN https://t.co/u8sJ1VLhCY
So, Super Tuesday seems pretty much as expected, yes?
Miss Plato, do you happen to have that dog chap link to hand? Only a small thing, but the hound's being a bit ratty when it comes to having her paws wiped after a rainy walk, and I'd prefer to get her away from that.
Sure - it's a lie