Politics & Current Events

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 13501
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 2106
x 1262

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:29 am

Hairyducked Idiot wrote:I'm still not entirely clear why a plurality gives you a moral imperative to be declared the winner.

If it's split 3 ways or more and it's a clear plurality, I think it's the obvious imperative.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Hairyducked Idiot
Kyle in disguise
Posts: 34762
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:42 pm
Location: GRIP IT AND RIP IT
x 2128
x 2309

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Hairyducked Idiot » Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:52 am

WrigleyField 22 wrote:
Hairyducked Idiot wrote:I'm still not entirely clear why a plurality gives you a moral imperative to be declared the winner.

If it's split 3 ways or more and it's a clear plurality, I think it's the obvious imperative.


Literally more people voted against you than for you. The majority didn't want you.

There's lots of ways to break a multi-way deadlock. Ranked choice voting is the best. Since we can't have that, we have the next-best thing: Delegates representing voters who are free to coalesce around a winner on subsequent ballots.

I mean, "first past the post" can be a reasonable way of doing it, but it's not the only way.
0 x

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 13501
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 2106
x 1262

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:56 am

Hairyducked Idiot wrote:
WrigleyField 22 wrote:
Hairyducked Idiot wrote:I'm still not entirely clear why a plurality gives you a moral imperative to be declared the winner.

If it's split 3 ways or more and it's a clear plurality, I think it's the obvious imperative.


Literally more people voted against you than for you. The majority didn't want you.

There's lots of ways to break a multi-way deadlock. Ranked choice voting is the best. Since we can't have that, we have the next-best thing: Delegates representing voters who are free to coalesce around a winner on subsequent ballots.

I mean, "first past the post" can be a reasonable way of doing it, but it's not the only way.

Okay well if Bernie can be 40+ and the next closest can't bread like, 25, it would be pretty crazy that the delegates don't coalesce around him.
0 x
Image

User avatar
Banedon
Curse You!
Posts: 67877
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:36 pm
Location: Kidding Myself
x 6367
x 6252

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Banedon » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:30 pm

Hairyducked Idiot wrote:
WrigleyField 22 wrote:
Hairyducked Idiot wrote:I'm still not entirely clear why a plurality gives you a moral imperative to be declared the winner.

If it's split 3 ways or more and it's a clear plurality, I think it's the obvious imperative.


Literally more people voted against you than for you. The majority didn't want you.


But they wanted everyone else EVEN LESS. This is a pretty silly position.
0 x

User avatar
Tim
Hall of Fame
Posts: 45606
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: Naperville, IL
x 82
x 2698
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Tim » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:51 pm

Banedon wrote:
Hairyducked Idiot wrote:
WrigleyField 22 wrote:If it's split 3 ways or more and it's a clear plurality, I think it's the obvious imperative.


Literally more people voted against you than for you. The majority didn't want you.


But they wanted everyone else EVEN LESS. This is a pretty silly position.

Not necessarily.

Think about it from a party platform perspective and total election perspective. If the majority of primary voters cast votes for more moderate candidates, would it make sense to set the platform to the "revolution" that Bernie represents? Would it make sense to have Bernie running on "revolution" at the top of the ticket, but have a more moderate platform?

If Bernie gets 47% of the vote/delegates, then make him the nominee, line the platform up with him, etc. If he gets a plurality at 35%, but the combination of moderate candidates get 60%...it's not nearly as easy from a complete party perspective.

Basically, let's hope voters coalesce behind *someone* so it isn't a concern.
0 x
Spoiler: show

Image

User avatar
Derwood
Stall Monitor
Posts: 71525
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: 375 Miles East of Wrigley
x 1374
x 2909

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Derwood » Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:52 pm

Funny how Bernie was against "plurality wins" when he was trailing Hillary in 2016, but now he's suddenly for it when he has a the upper hand.

You can't rewrite the rules mid-stream (unless you're Bloomberg, then you just pay the DNC to do what you want)
0 x

User avatar
Banedon
Curse You!
Posts: 67877
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:36 pm
Location: Kidding Myself
x 6367
x 6252

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Banedon » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:49 pm

Tim wrote:
Banedon wrote:
Hairyducked Idiot wrote:
Literally more people voted against you than for you. The majority didn't want you.


But they wanted everyone else EVEN LESS. This is a pretty silly position.

Not necessarily.

Think about it from a party platform perspective and total election perspective. If the majority of primary voters cast votes for more moderate candidates, would it make sense to set the platform to the "revolution" that Bernie represents? Would it make sense to have Bernie running on "revolution" at the top of the ticket, but have a more moderate platform?

If Bernie gets 47% of the vote/delegates, then make him the nominee, line the platform up with him, etc. If he gets a plurality at 35%, but the combination of moderate candidates get 60%...it's not nearly as easy from a complete party perspective.

Basically, let's hope voters coalesce behind *someone* so it isn't a concern.


That's not how people vote. They vote for individuals. You don't get to lump Bernie and Liz together and put the moderates together and see who wins. Voters aren't reliable like that.
2 x

User avatar
Banedon
Curse You!
Posts: 67877
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:36 pm
Location: Kidding Myself
x 6367
x 6252

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Banedon » Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:54 pm

5 x

User avatar
OleMissCub
Hall of Fame
Posts: 37828
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 6:32 am
x 1342
x 1691

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby OleMissCub » Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:20 pm

What would happen if Bloomberg runs as an Independent? Obviously he wouldn't win and I'm sure it would ultimately benefit Trump in the end, but what would his numbers look like? Perot got 18.9% in 1992 against a sitting President and a young and energetic Democrat. Perot didn't have the money Bloomberg has nor did he have the ability to spread his campaign via social media nor did he have two extremely divisive candidates he was going against. If Perot got 18.9% is it crazy to think Bloomberg could get 25%?
0 x

User avatar
Derwood
Stall Monitor
Posts: 71525
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: 375 Miles East of Wrigley
x 1374
x 2909

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Derwood » Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Image
1 x

User avatar
WrigleyField 22
Superstar
Posts: 13501
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:48 pm
Location: hnderstabxcwhsg
x 2106
x 1262

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby WrigleyField 22 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 2:49 pm

OleMissCub wrote:What would happen if Bloomberg runs as an Independent? Obviously he wouldn't win and I'm sure it would ultimately benefit Trump in the end, but what would his numbers look like? Perot got 18.9% in 1992 against a sitting President and a young and energetic Democrat. Perot didn't have the money Bloomberg has nor did he have the ability to spread his campaign via social media nor did he have two extremely divisive candidates he was going against. If Perot got 18.9% is it crazy to think Bloomberg could get 25%?

I'm skeptical he can actually poach a significant amount of Republicans and he's only at 15% right now with Dems, a decent/significant number of who will abandon him for the Dem. candidate.

Bush had a legit primary contender, a sign that many in his own party were looking for alternatives. Trump. Doesn't have that. The moderate republican is dead.

ETA, Gary Johnson went from about 1% in 2012 to 3.3% in 2016. I'd say that block of voters (the 2.3% increase) is roughly your pool of defect voters. Even if Bloomberg can double or triple that, he's not a Perot type threat, though that could be enough to throw the election, depending on distribution of votes.
0 x
Image

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 9012
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 355
x 3388

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:12 pm

1 x

User avatar
minnesotacubsfan
Superstar
Posts: 18249
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: THE HONORABLE JUDGE PRICK
x 2045
x 897

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby minnesotacubsfan » Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:18 pm

WrigleyField 22 wrote:
OleMissCub wrote:What would happen if Bloomberg runs as an Independent? Obviously he wouldn't win and I'm sure it would ultimately benefit Trump in the end, but what would his numbers look like? Perot got 18.9% in 1992 against a sitting President and a young and energetic Democrat. Perot didn't have the money Bloomberg has nor did he have the ability to spread his campaign via social media nor did he have two extremely divisive candidates he was going against. If Perot got 18.9% is it crazy to think Bloomberg could get 25%?

I'm skeptical he can actually poach a significant amount of Republicans and he's only at 15% right now with Dems, a decent/significant number of who will abandon him for the Dem. candidate.

Bush had a legit primary contender, a sign that many in his own party were looking for alternatives. Trump. Doesn't have that. The moderate republican is dead.

ETA, Gary Johnson went from about 1% in 2012 to 3.3% in 2016. I'd say that block of voters (the 2.3% increase) is roughly your pool of defect voters. Even if Bloomberg can double or triple that, he's not a Perot type threat, though that could be enough to throw the election, depending on distribution of votes.



Honestly, Betnie is closer to being a Perot-ish 3rd party candidate capable of throwing off the 2 party sustem
0 x
Image

User avatar
JudasIscariotTheBird
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 5410
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:05 am
Location: Denver, CO
x 5211
x 2240

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby JudasIscariotTheBird » Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:52 pm

Derwood wrote:Funny how Bernie was against "plurality wins" when he was trailing Hillary in 2016, but now he's suddenly for it when he has a the upper hand.

You can't rewrite the rules mid-stream (unless you're Bloomberg, then you just pay the DNC to do what you want)

Is it funny though? Bernie wanted to eliminate superdelegates. He succeeded in at least delaying their influence so that they couldn't overrule a majority of delegates. First Warren starts taking Super PAC money when she can really only play spoiler, and now this Bernie wrote the rules BS. Gtfo.

Anyways, there are no moral imperatives involved. The only imperative is political...which is maybe moral depending on your point of view.
0 x
"None of these signal alarm bells to me"-Boris
"Sublime was driven by their frontman, who was, quite probably, a musical savant." -RIP Stannis
(Formerly Diceman4221)

User avatar
OleMissCub
Hall of Fame
Posts: 37828
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 6:32 am
x 1342
x 1691

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby OleMissCub » Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:54 pm

Just realized that my entire post is moot: many states, specifically Ohio and Michigan, have “sore loser” laws where the loser of a primary cannot have their name on the general election ballot.

I guess his strategy is just to buy his way into being the nominee at a brokered convention.
0 x

User avatar
Ding Dong Johnson
Crap Bag
Posts: 34884
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:42 am
Location: Durnsville
x 979
x 6534

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Ding Dong Johnson » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:00 pm

2 x
Image

User avatar
UMFan83
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 79685
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:42 pm
Location: Southport Ave
x 3143
x 5041
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby UMFan83 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:11 pm

Ding Dong Johnson wrote:Don't forget to scroll...

http://rossblocher.com/hosted/candidatewealth.html


Stupid question but how is wealth calculated? Are we seriously to believe that Mayor Pete only has $100,000 in assets to his name? He doesn't own a house? Does he have a gambling or drug addiction or something?
1 x
Win it for Fred

User avatar
OleMissCub
Hall of Fame
Posts: 37828
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 6:32 am
x 1342
x 1691

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby OleMissCub » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:13 pm

UMFan83 wrote:
Ding Dong Johnson wrote:Don't forget to scroll...

http://rossblocher.com/hosted/candidatewealth.html


Stupid question but how is wealth calculated? Are we seriously to believe that Mayor Pete only has $100,000 in assets to his name? He doesn't own a house? Does he have a gambling or drug addiction or something?


Maybe there was a Mayor's house or something that he lived in the past 8 years?
0 x

User avatar
sneakypower
Javy Baez Fanclub President
Posts: 12027
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:58 am
Location: behind the boathouse
x 719
x 1307

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby sneakypower » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:20 pm

Derwood wrote:Funny how Bernie was against "plurality wins" when he was trailing Hillary in 2016, but now he's suddenly for it when he has a the upper hand.

You can't rewrite the rules mid-stream (unless you're Bloomberg, then you just pay the DNC to do what you want)

who gives a horsefeathers about antiquated party rules? you're licking your chops to actively disenfranchise all your biggest budding voting blocs for a very long time ya dumb horsefeathers

*howie ratner voice* this is how we lose
Last edited by sneakypower on Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1 x

User avatar
jersey cubs fan
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 61460
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Hoboken squat cobbler
x 3163
x 11183

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby jersey cubs fan » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:21 pm

OleMissCub wrote:
UMFan83 wrote:
Ding Dong Johnson wrote:Don't forget to scroll...

http://rossblocher.com/hosted/candidatewealth.html


Stupid question but how is wealth calculated? Are we seriously to believe that Mayor Pete only has $100,000 in assets to his name? He doesn't own a house? Does he have a gambling or drug addiction or something?


Maybe there was a Mayor's house or something that he lived in the past 8 years?

A home isn't necessarily a good thing to include in your net worth, since you have to live somewhere, plus it's illiquid and the bank may own a significant portion.
0 x
longhotsummer wrote:I realize now, any opposing viewpoint, will not be tolerated.

User avatar
Derwood
Stall Monitor
Posts: 71525
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: 375 Miles East of Wrigley
x 1374
x 2909

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Derwood » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:22 pm

sneakypower wrote:
Derwood wrote:Funny how Bernie was against "plurality wins" when he was trailing Hillary in 2016, but now he's suddenly for it when he has a the upper hand.

You can't rewrite the rules mid-stream (unless you're Bloomberg, then you just pay the DNC to do what you want)

who gives a horsefeathers about antiquated party rules? you're licking your chops to actively disenfranchise all your biggest budding voting blocs for a very long time ya dumb horsefeathers

*howie ratner voice* this is how we lose


Sarcasm? I don't know where you're going here
0 x

squally1313
All-Star
Posts: 4223
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:34 pm
x 1367
x 1613

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby squally1313 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:26 pm

Sofa try to get through this video without screaming.

0 x

User avatar
OleMissCub
Hall of Fame
Posts: 37828
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 6:32 am
x 1342
x 1691

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby OleMissCub » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:51 pm

Didn't realize how well Bloomberg is doing in so many states. He's leading in NY, 3 behind the lead (Biden) in Florida, 3 behind the lead (Sanders) in NC, 4 behind the lead (Sanders) in PA, and 1 behind the lead (Biden) in Oklahoma.
0 x

Sank888
Role Player
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2020 9:22 pm
x 3

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sank888 » Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:58 pm

OleMissCub wrote:
UMFan83 wrote:
Ding Dong Johnson wrote:Don't forget to scroll...

http://rossblocher.com/hosted/candidatewealth.html


Stupid question but how is wealth calculated? Are we seriously to believe that Mayor Pete only has $100,000 in assets to his name? He doesn't own a house? Does he have a gambling or drug addiction or something?


Maybe there was a Mayor's house or something that he lived in the past 8 years?


I doubt he makes much money as mayor and I doubt there is much equity in any homes in south bend. Especially one that such a calculating politician would live in.

Mayor Petes lack of wealth thing is [expletive] anyway. It’s because he went to Afghanistan and has been a mayor. Look at his CV and now his noteriety. He will have 100mil by the time he’s 70 like the rest of the candidates (if he wants it).
0 x

User avatar
JudasIscariotTheBird
5-Time All-Star
Posts: 5410
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:05 am
Location: Denver, CO
x 5211
x 2240

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby JudasIscariotTheBird » Fri Feb 28, 2020 5:00 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:
OleMissCub wrote:
UMFan83 wrote:
Stupid question but how is wealth calculated? Are we seriously to believe that Mayor Pete only has $100,000 in assets to his name? He doesn't own a house? Does he have a gambling or drug addiction or something?


Maybe there was a Mayor's house or something that he lived in the past 8 years?

A home isn't necessarily a good thing to include in your net worth, since you have to live somewhere, plus it's illiquid and the bank may own a significant portion.

Image
0 x
"None of these signal alarm bells to me"-Boris
"Sublime was driven by their frontman, who was, quite probably, a musical savant." -RIP Stannis
(Formerly Diceman4221)


Return to “Social”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CoBleacherBum, David, Ding Dong Johnson, JudasIscariotTheBird, Sammy Sofa, SouthSideRyan and 6 guests