2016 Presidential Candidate (Updated Candidates)

[Jeremy E.]

Continuation of the first poll, now that candidates have somewhat changed.

[Jeremy E.]

The results from the previous poll,
Hillary Clinton - 21.8%
Bernie Sanders - 40.6%
Joe Biden - Not in previous poll
Jim Webb -  - Not in previous poll
Martin O'Malley - 0.6%
Donald Trump - 9.4%
Ben Carson - 2.4%
Carly Fiorina - Not in previous poll
Marco Rubio - 1.8%
Jeb Bush - 1.8%
Ted Cruz - 1.5%
John Kasich - Not in previous poll
Chris Christie - 2.4%
Mike Huckabee - Not in previous poll
Rand Paul - 11.2%

[Jeremy E.]

My top 3 choices would be John Kasich, followed by Rand Paul, and lastly Jeb Bush.
This could possibly be the first time I vote for a Democrat,
If it ends up being Donald Trump vs Joe Biden, I'll be voting for Biden. I have no idea what would happen if Donald Trump becomes president and I DEFINITELY don't want to find out. Biden would probably follow the status quo and not a whole lot would change, which would suck, but the potential for the country to be severely messed up by a Trump presidency is to high to vote for him.
For me, the worst case scenario is it ending up being Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders. If either one of them becomes president, there is a high probability of the country having at least one massive change that I probably won't like. Kudos to Sanders for getting all funding from normal people, but I don't want any more socialist entitlements or to have my high capacity guns taken away.

[Bob W]

Could you note which poll(S) you referenced.    Don't worry about your guns.   No one is taking those away.

[Jeremy E.]

Could you note which poll(S) you referenced.    Don't worry about your guns.   No one is taking those away.

I used the RCP average found here,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
let me know if there is a better source to get polling information

Also, if I moved to California, it would be illegal for me to bring a lot of my guns. Maybe other states too, and if Sanders gets his way, there will be similar laws for all of the United States.

[Bob W]

Good source.        A liberal socialist opposed to the Constitution?  I'm shocked!  Next thing you know he'll be supporting baby killing while simultaneously arguing the death penalty is wrong.   

[Glenstache]

Could you note which poll(S) you referenced.    Don't worry about your guns.   No one is taking those away.

I used the RCP average found here,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
let me know if there is a better source to get polling information

Also, if I moved to California, it would be illegal for me to bring a lot of my guns. Maybe other states too, and if Sanders gets his way, there will be similar laws for all of the United States.

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP. Try:

http://www.pollingreport.com/

or

http://www.pewresearch.org/

But there is another question raised by a number of the comments above and the 26 pages of comments in the original thread. Are there any deal breaker issues that would make/break a candidate in your minds? And the follow up question is if the deal breaker issue is something the president can actually do independent of congress. ie, is voting for the executive branch based on that issue logical?

[MDM]

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP.

Biased in which way?

RCP often pairs opposing views in contiguous links, e.g.,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/05/the-heart-of-the-deal and
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/carly-fiorina-liberal-bubble-planned-parenthood/

I haven't done an exhaustive survey of their link leanings, but having opposing spin pieces does allow one to see both sides....

[Jeremy E.]

Could you note which poll(S) you referenced.    Don't worry about your guns.   No one is taking those away.

I used the RCP average found here,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
let me know if there is a better source to get polling information

Also, if I moved to California, it would be illegal for me to bring a lot of my guns. Maybe other states too, and if Sanders gets his way, there will be similar laws for all of the United States.

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP. Try:

http://www.pollingreport.com/

or

http://www.pewresearch.org/

But there is another question raised by a number of the comments above and the 26 pages of comments in the original thread. Are there any deal breaker issues that would make/break a candidate in your minds? And the follow up question is if the deal breaker issue is something the president can actually do independent of congress. ie, is voting for the executive branch based on that issue logical?

Republicans must be good at SEO, I usually just google whatever I'm looking for and click the first link, and very often people complain about it being a republican biased site, not once have I had a complaint about using a democratic biased site.

[Kris]

Could you note which poll(S) you referenced.    Don't worry about your guns.   No one is taking those away.

I used the RCP average found here,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
let me know if there is a better source to get polling information

Also, if I moved to California, it would be illegal for me to bring a lot of my guns. Maybe other states too, and if Sanders gets his way, there will be similar laws for all of the United States.

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP. Try:

http://www.pollingreport.com/

or

http://www.pewresearch.org/

But there is another question raised by a number of the comments above and the 26 pages of comments in the original thread. Are there any deal breaker issues that would make/break a candidate in your minds? And the follow up question is if the deal breaker issue is something the president can actually do independent of congress. ie, is voting for the executive branch based on that issue logical?

Republicans must be good at SEO, I usually just google whatever I'm looking for and click the first link, and very often people complain about it being a republican biased site, not once have I had a complaint about using a democratic biased site.

There are other explanations for that...

[Jeremy E.]

Could you note which poll(S) you referenced.    Don't worry about your guns.   No one is taking those away.

I used the RCP average found here,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
let me know if there is a better source to get polling information

Also, if I moved to California, it would be illegal for me to bring a lot of my guns. Maybe other states too, and if Sanders gets his way, there will be similar laws for all of the United States.

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP. Try:

http://www.pollingreport.com/

or

http://www.pewresearch.org/

But there is another question raised by a number of the comments above and the 26 pages of comments in the original thread. Are there any deal breaker issues that would make/break a candidate in your minds? And the follow up question is if the deal breaker issue is something the president can actually do independent of congress. ie, is voting for the executive branch based on that issue logical?

Republicans must be good at SEO, I usually just google whatever I'm looking for and click the first link, and very often people complain about it being a republican biased site, not once have I had a complaint about using a democratic biased site.

There are other explanations for that...

Are you accusing Google of wrongdoing?

[Kris]

Could you note which poll(S) you referenced.    Don't worry about your guns.   No one is taking those away.

I used the RCP average found here,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
let me know if there is a better source to get polling information

Also, if I moved to California, it would be illegal for me to bring a lot of my guns. Maybe other states too, and if Sanders gets his way, there will be similar laws for all of the United States.

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP. Try:

http://www.pollingreport.com/

or

http://www.pewresearch.org/

But there is another question raised by a number of the comments above and the 26 pages of comments in the original thread. Are there any deal breaker issues that would make/break a candidate in your minds? And the follow up question is if the deal breaker issue is something the president can actually do independent of congress. ie, is voting for the executive branch based on that issue logical?

Republicans must be good at SEO, I usually just google whatever I'm looking for and click the first link, and very often people complain about it being a republican biased site, not once have I had a complaint about using a democratic biased site.

There are other explanations for that...

Are you accusing Google of wrongdoing?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.  I'm saying there are other explanations for that. For example, it's possible you are prejudicing the search results with the terms you search.  Googling "Is Obama a Muslim", for example, is likely to give you mostly results saying he is toward the top.  It's like polling in that way: how you ask the question influences how you get the answers. 

Or, the Republican sites you just happen upon could be paying a lot more money to ensure that they have huge engines in their organizations driving SEO than other, non-partisan or left-leaning sites. For obvious political reasons, as well as capitalistic reasons.

[midweststache]

But there is another question raised by a number of the comments above and the 26 pages of comments in the original thread. Are there any deal breaker issues that would make/break a candidate in your minds? And the follow up question is if the deal breaker issue is something the president can actually do independent of congress. ie, is voting for the executive branch based on that issue logical?

I think single issues are important, not because the President can enact law, but because the President appoints Supreme Court nominees. Ginsberg is in her 80s, Scalia and Kennedy are damn near 80, and Breyer is in his late 70s. Assuming the next President will remain in office two terms, that is VERY LIKELY four Supreme Court nominees coming his/her way. And while Supreme Court officials SHOULD be non-partisan, the law is open to interpretation and is thus biased by the justices' political leanings.

[Jeremy E.]

But there is another question raised by a number of the comments above and the 26 pages of comments in the original thread. Are there any deal breaker issues that would make/break a candidate in your minds? And the follow up question is if the deal breaker issue is something the president can actually do independent of congress. ie, is voting for the executive branch based on that issue logical?

I think single issues are important, not because the President can enact law, but because the President appoints Supreme Court nominees. Ginsberg is in her 80s, Scalia and Kennedy are damn near 80, and Breyer is in his late 70s. Assuming the next President will remain in office two terms, that is VERY LIKELY four Supreme Court nominees coming his/her way. And while Supreme Court officials SHOULD be non-partisan, the law is open to interpretation and is thus biased by the justices' political leanings.

It was very disturbing during the GOP debate when they called out Jeb Bush because his brother appointed Roberts as a Supreme Court Justice and not all of his decisions have been "conservative". It made me dislike Ted Cruz very much because he basically said W Bush was an idiot for appointing a Supreme court justice who wasn't conservative, even though he supported the decision when it was made.

[Jeremy E.]

Could you note which poll(S) you referenced.    Don't worry about your guns.   No one is taking those away.

I used the RCP average found here,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
let me know if there is a better source to get polling information

Also, if I moved to California, it would be illegal for me to bring a lot of my guns. Maybe other states too, and if Sanders gets his way, there will be similar laws for all of the United States.

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP. Try:

http://www.pollingreport.com/

or

http://www.pewresearch.org/

But there is another question raised by a number of the comments above and the 26 pages of comments in the original thread. Are there any deal breaker issues that would make/break a candidate in your minds? And the follow up question is if the deal breaker issue is something the president can actually do independent of congress. ie, is voting for the executive branch based on that issue logical?

Republicans must be good at SEO, I usually just google whatever I'm looking for and click the first link, and very often people complain about it being a republican biased site, not once have I had a complaint about using a democratic biased site.

There are other explanations for that...

Are you accusing Google of wrongdoing?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.  I'm saying there are other explanations for that. For example, it's possible you are prejudicing the search results with the terms you search.  Googling "Is Obama a Muslim", for example, is likely to give you mostly results saying he is toward the top.  It's like polling in that way: how you ask the question influences how you get the answers. 

Or, the Republican sites you just happen upon could be paying a lot more money to ensure that they have huge engines in their organizations driving SEO than other, non-partisan or left-leaning sites. For obvious political reasons, as well as capitalistic reasons.

Well, I searched "2016 presidential polls", found real clear politics and from there clicked on democratic nomination and then republican nomination. Sorry if that is too biased for you. If the Republicans are paying more for SEO, then that makes my point that republicans are good at SEO

[Kris]

Could you note which poll(S) you referenced.    Don't worry about your guns.   No one is taking those away.

I used the RCP average found here,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html
let me know if there is a better source to get polling information

Also, if I moved to California, it would be illegal for me to bring a lot of my guns. Maybe other states too, and if Sanders gets his way, there will be similar laws for all of the United States.

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP. Try:

http://www.pollingreport.com/

or

http://www.pewresearch.org/

But there is another question raised by a number of the comments above and the 26 pages of comments in the original thread. Are there any deal breaker issues that would make/break a candidate in your minds? And the follow up question is if the deal breaker issue is something the president can actually do independent of congress. ie, is voting for the executive branch based on that issue logical?

Republicans must be good at SEO, I usually just google whatever I'm looking for and click the first link, and very often people complain about it being a republican biased site, not once have I had a complaint about using a democratic biased site.

There are other explanations for that...

Are you accusing Google of wrongdoing?

I'm not accusing anyone of anything.  I'm saying there are other explanations for that. For example, it's possible you are prejudicing the search results with the terms you search.  Googling "Is Obama a Muslim", for example, is likely to give you mostly results saying he is toward the top.  It's like polling in that way: how you ask the question influences how you get the answers. 

Or, the Republican sites you just happen upon could be paying a lot more money to ensure that they have huge engines in their organizations driving SEO than other, non-partisan or left-leaning sites. For obvious political reasons, as well as capitalistic reasons.

Well, I searched "2016 presidential polls", found real clear politics and from there clicked on democratic nomination and then republican nomination. Sorry if that is too biased for you. If the Republicans are paying more for SEO, then that makes my point that republicans are good at SEO

So, you know that the top results in a search, that are separated from the other ones, are results that the organizations paid for to have listed at the top, right? Because when I did that search, that's what I saw: the first two hits were paid placements from Real Clear Polititcs.  Then a selection of "in the news", followed by the top actual, non-paid results.   The first of which was Politico.

[Jeremy E.]

So, you know that the top results in a search, that are separated from the other ones, are results that the organizations paid for to have listed at the top, right? Because when I did that search, that's what I saw: the first two hits were paid placements from Real Clear Polititcs.  Then a selection of "in the news", followed by the top actual, non-paid results.   The first of which was Politico.

Had no clue, but the first one for me is Huffington post under the "in the news"

[Kris]

So, you know that the top results in a search, that are separated from the other ones, are results that the organizations paid for to have listed at the top, right? Because when I did that search, that's what I saw: the first two hits were paid placements from Real Clear Polititcs.  Then a selection of "in the news", followed by the top actual, non-paid results.   The first of which was Politico.

Had no clue, but the first one for me is Huffington post under the "in the news"

For me, it's NBC News. I'd be willing to bet that Google accepts money from news orgs to keep them churning around in the first views of news articles listed in that category.

[MDM]

Are we all agreed then that RCP is generally unbiased, as it often presents both left-leaning and right-leaning links about the same subject?

Or do Republicans not like seeing liberal spin and call RCP left-leaning, while Democrats don't like seeing conservative spin and call RCP right-leaning?

Or does someone have reasonably recent, objective data showing something else entirely?

[pbkmaine]

Nate Silver. Fivethirtyeight.com. Nate is a sports statistician who uses his knowledge to adjust political polls for right or left bias. He called every state but one in 2008, and every state in 2012.

[Glenstache]

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP.

Biased in which way?

RCP often pairs opposing views in contiguous links, e.g.,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/05/the-heart-of-the-deal and
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/carly-fiorina-liberal-bubble-planned-parenthood/

I haven't done an exhaustive survey of their link leanings, but having opposing spin pieces does allow one to see both sides....

So, I did some looking and found some studies that showed that RCP poll averaging was "center" and not really biased. My previous take had been based on the few previous times I had seen the page and the top links were very partisan to my eye. I agree that they pair left and right articles, etc. So, they are clearly less biased than other aggregators, or sources such as Fox (which actually went to court to defend an ability to knowingly lie). But, I am not convinced that simply putting up a left and right link qualifies as balanced because it is an assumed equivalence of the validity of positions/content. This may balance out when looked at across the political spectrum. However, on issues where there is verifiable information (ie things involving real numbers, or overwhelming scientific consensus), I would require further convincing that this is appropriate.

[Kris]

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP.

Biased in which way?

RCP often pairs opposing views in contiguous links, e.g.,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/05/the-heart-of-the-deal and
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/carly-fiorina-liberal-bubble-planned-parenthood/

I haven't done an exhaustive survey of their link leanings, but having opposing spin pieces does allow one to see both sides....

So, I did some looking and found some studies that showed that RCP poll averaging was "center" and not really biased. My previous take had been based on the few previous times I had seen the page and the top links were very partisan to my eye. I agree that they pair left and right articles, etc. So, they are clearly less biased than other aggregators, or sources such as Fox (which actually went to court to defend an ability to knowingly lie). But, I am not convinced that simply putting up a left and right link qualifies as balanced because it is an assumed equivalence of the validity of positions/content. This may balance out when looked at across the political spectrum. However, on issues where there is verifiable information (ie things involving real numbers, or overwhelming scientific consensus), I would require further convincing that this is appropriate.

Exactly.  In fact, "false equivalence" is a well-known logical fallacy.  (Well, it would be well-known, if most people had any idea what a logical fallacy was.)  It's an easy tool to manipulate people into believing that both sides are equally meritorious in cases where they are not. 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/false-equivalence-logical-fallacies/

[MDM]

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP.

Biased in which way?

RCP often pairs opposing views in contiguous links, e.g.,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/05/the-heart-of-the-deal and
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/carly-fiorina-liberal-bubble-planned-parenthood/

I haven't done an exhaustive survey of their link leanings, but having opposing spin pieces does allow one to see both sides....

So, I did some looking and found some studies that showed that RCP poll averaging was "center" and not really biased. My previous take had been based on the few previous times I had seen the page and the top links were very partisan to my eye. I agree that they pair left and right articles, etc. So, they are clearly less biased than other aggregators, or sources such as Fox (which actually went to court to defend an ability to knowingly lie). But, I am not convinced that simply putting up a left and right link qualifies as balanced because it is an assumed equivalence of the validity of positions/content. This may balance out when looked at across the political spectrum. However, on issues where there is verifiable information (ie things involving real numbers, or overwhelming scientific consensus), I would require further convincing that this is appropriate.

Exactly.  In fact, "false equivalence" is a well-known logical fallacy.  (Well, it would be well-known, if most people had any idea what a logical fallacy was.)  It's an easy tool to manipulate people into believing that both sides are equally meritorious in cases where they are not. 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/false-equivalence-logical-fallacies/

Depends on one's preconceived notions then, doesn't it?  E.g., some would maintain there is no equal merit to discussing "Obama is not a US citizen," while others would maintain there is no equal merit to discussing "Republicans want poor children to starve."  Personally I think only the right and left wingnuts respectively would think that way, and those cases should be obvious.  But many other more nuanced issues are "obvious" only to partisans.

[Kris]

Almost anything will be less biased than RCP.

Biased in which way?

RCP often pairs opposing views in contiguous links, e.g.,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/05/the-heart-of-the-deal and
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/carly-fiorina-liberal-bubble-planned-parenthood/

I haven't done an exhaustive survey of their link leanings, but having opposing spin pieces does allow one to see both sides....

So, I did some looking and found some studies that showed that RCP poll averaging was "center" and not really biased. My previous take had been based on the few previous times I had seen the page and the top links were very partisan to my eye. I agree that they pair left and right articles, etc. So, they are clearly less biased than other aggregators, or sources such as Fox (which actually went to court to defend an ability to knowingly lie). But, I am not convinced that simply putting up a left and right link qualifies as balanced because it is an assumed equivalence of the validity of positions/content. This may balance out when looked at across the political spectrum. However, on issues where there is verifiable information (ie things involving real numbers, or overwhelming scientific consensus), I would require further convincing that this is appropriate.

Exactly.  In fact, "false equivalence" is a well-known logical fallacy.  (Well, it would be well-known, if most people had any idea what a logical fallacy was.)  It's an easy tool to manipulate people into believing that both sides are equally meritorious in cases where they are not. 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/false-equivalence-logical-fallacies/

Depends on one's preconceived notions then, doesn't it?  E.g., some would maintain there is no equal merit to discussing "Obama is not a US citizen," while others would maintain there is no equal merit to discussing "Republicans want poor children to starve."  Personally I think only the right and left wingnuts respectively would think that way, and those cases should be obvious.  But many other more nuanced issues are "obvious" only to partisans.

Sure.  But as I said above, some things have merit, and others do not.  Things that have actual documented or scientific evidence on one side and none (or very little) on the other, such as "Obama is not a US citizen" or "Obama is a Muslim" or "Human activity is contributing to climate change" should not be discussed as having two equally meritorious sides. 

"Republicans want poor children to starve" doesn't have actual documented evidence.  That's not the same kind of an argument, and it's presuming to be able to look into the minds and hearts of all the individuals of one particular party and make a broad generalization.  While some might find it satisfying to say it, and while it might "feel" intuitively true to those people, it's not something that actually has the ability to be proven or disproven, false equivalency or no. 

[MDM]

Sure.  But as I said above, some things have merit, and others do not.  Things that have actual documented or scientific evidence on one side and none (or very little) on the other, such as "Obama is not a US citizen"... should not be discussed as having two equally meritorious sides. 

"Republicans want poor children to starve" doesn't have actual documented evidence.  That's not the same kind of an argument, and it's presuming to be able to look into the minds and hearts of all the individuals of one particular party and make a broad generalization.  While some might find it satisfying to say it, and while it might "feel" intuitively true to those people, it's not something that actually has the ability to be proven or disproven, false equivalency or no.

Just checking: are you making a pedantic point about the differences between those two things, and agreeing that neither would be worth having RCP (or any other site) support debate about?  If so, I agree also.
Or are you saying one would be worth debating but not the other?

[electriceagle]

Chluthu: Why choose the lesser evil?

[Kris]

Sure.  But as I said above, some things have merit, and others do not.  Things that have actual documented or scientific evidence on one side and none (or very little) on the other, such as "Obama is not a US citizen"... should not be discussed as having two equally meritorious sides. 

"Republicans want poor children to starve" doesn't have actual documented evidence.  That's not the same kind of an argument, and it's presuming to be able to look into the minds and hearts of all the individuals of one particular party and make a broad generalization.  While some might find it satisfying to say it, and while it might "feel" intuitively true to those people, it's not something that actually has the ability to be proven or disproven, false equivalency or no.

Just checking: are you making a pedantic point about the differences between those two things, and agreeing that neither would be worth having RCP (or any other site) support debate about?  If so, I agree also.
Or are you saying one would be worth debating but not the other?

No, I'm essentially saying the first thing.  I was kind of making the point, though, that the two things shouldn't be debate-worthy for different reasons: "Obama is not a US citizen" is ridiculous to present as a subject that has two "equivalent" sides to debate from because there is clear evidence it is not true, and no evidence that it is.  "Republicans want poor children to starve" is ridiculous to present as a subject worthy of debate because in and of itself it is a meaningless demonization with no way to show factual information one way or another.

In other words, they are both ridiculous subjects for debate, but for different reasons.  They both seek to demonize the other side, but one is patently false, whereas the other is just… silly.  I will say this, though: Both statements are similar in that both seek to create the illusion of legitimacy by pretending there is any debate to be had at all.  Anyway, color me pedantic if you will. I am a professor, after all, so probably I come by it honestly.

[MDM]

Sure.  But as I said above, some things have merit, and others do not.  Things that have actual documented or scientific evidence on one side and none (or very little) on the other, such as "Obama is not a US citizen"... should not be discussed as having two equally meritorious sides. 

"Republicans want poor children to starve" doesn't have actual documented evidence.  That's not the same kind of an argument, and it's presuming to be able to look into the minds and hearts of all the individuals of one particular party and make a broad generalization.  While some might find it satisfying to say it, and while it might "feel" intuitively true to those people, it's not something that actually has the ability to be proven or disproven, false equivalency or no.

Just checking: are you making a pedantic point about the differences between those two things, and agreeing that neither would be worth having RCP (or any other site) support debate about?  If so, I agree also.
Or are you saying one would be worth debating but not the other?

No, I'm essentially saying the first thing.  I was kind of making the point, though, that the two things shouldn't be debate-worthy for different reasons: "Obama is not a US citizen" is ridiculous to present as a subject that has two "equivalent" sides to debate from because there is clear evidence it is not true, and no evidence that it is.  "Republicans want poor children to starve" is ridiculous to present as a subject worthy of debate because in and of itself it is a meaningless demonization with no way to show factual information one way or another.

In other words, they are both ridiculous subjects for debate, but for different reasons.  They both seek to demonize the other side, but one is patently false, whereas the other is just… silly.  I will say this, though: Both statements are similar in that both seek to create the illusion of legitimacy by pretending there is any debate to be had at all.  Anyway, color me pedantic if you will. I am a professor, after all, so probably I come by it honestly.

Nothing wrong with a little pedantry at appropriate times - I already agreed with your point. :)
Thought about using a different word, e.g. "overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, perfectionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, [or] finicky" but decided pedantic was close enough....

[Glenstache]

Moving on....

[MoonShadow]

My top 3 choices would be John Kasich, followed by Rand Paul, and lastly Jeb Bush.
This could possibly be the first time I vote for a Democrat,
If it ends up being Donald Trump vs Joe Biden, I'll be voting for Biden.

You do know that there will be more choices than just two in the general election, right?  Including not voting at all.

[Kris]

Moving on....

Hey, MDM and I were having fun, having our own little pedantic conversation in the corner! ;-)

[Matt_D]

My top 3 choices would be John Kasich, followed by Rand Paul, and lastly Jeb Bush.
This could possibly be the first time I vote for a Democrat,
If it ends up being Donald Trump vs Joe Biden, I'll be voting for Biden. I have no idea what would happen if Donald Trump becomes president and I DEFINITELY don't want to find out. Biden would probably follow the status quo and not a whole lot would change, which would suck, but the potential for the country to be severely messed up by a Trump presidency is to high to vote for him.
For me, the worst case scenario is it ending up being Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders. If either one of them becomes president, there is a high probability of the country having at least one massive change that I probably won't like. Kudos to Sanders for getting all funding from normal people, but I don't want any more socialist entitlements or to have my high capacity guns taken away.

Curious about your ranking order - I kinda understand Kasich and Bush, but how's Rand Paul sneaking in the middle there? He's pretty different from the other two.

On Sanders - not sure why you see guns as something changing under him, it's not on his issues list at all (see: https://berniesanders.com/issues/). If Congress did something he might support it, but that would require a pretty significant congressional shift first.

[Jeremy E.]

My top 3 choices would be John Kasich, followed by Rand Paul, and lastly Jeb Bush.
This could possibly be the first time I vote for a Democrat,
If it ends up being Donald Trump vs Joe Biden, I'll be voting for Biden.

You do know that there will be more choices than just two in the general election, right?  Including not voting at all.

If it's Donald Trump vs Joe Biden, I would want Joe Biden to win, so I would vote for him. Not voting or voting for an independent doesn't help him at all.

[Jeremy E.]

My top 3 choices would be John Kasich, followed by Rand Paul, and lastly Jeb Bush.
This could possibly be the first time I vote for a Democrat,
If it ends up being Donald Trump vs Joe Biden, I'll be voting for Biden. I have no idea what would happen if Donald Trump becomes president and I DEFINITELY don't want to find out. Biden would probably follow the status quo and not a whole lot would change, which would suck, but the potential for the country to be severely messed up by a Trump presidency is to high to vote for him.
For me, the worst case scenario is it ending up being Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders. If either one of them becomes president, there is a high probability of the country having at least one massive change that I probably won't like. Kudos to Sanders for getting all funding from normal people, but I don't want any more socialist entitlements or to have my high capacity guns taken away.

Curious about your ranking order - I kinda understand Kasich and Bush, but how's Rand Paul sneaking in the middle there? He's pretty different from the other two.

On Sanders - not sure why you see guns as something changing under him, it's not on his issues list at all (see: https://berniesanders.com/issues/). If Congress did something he might support it, but that would require a pretty significant congressional shift first.

Sanders has voted for a high capacity magazine ban in the past, he is in support of hunting so looking at his general firearms issues isn't a good indicator of this. I think John Kasich and Rand Paul have the best chances at fixing the economy, they both say they will reduce the military budget and reduce other government spending. As for Jeb Bush, I think a lot of Republicans are pieces of sh**, especially on their social issues and doing very unacceptable things that they think will make them look good. Jeb does this less than most other candidates I might consider.

[Jeremy E.]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-beau-2016-214459
Biden doesn't have long to decide.
If he gets in the race, does he take half of Hillaries votes and then allow Sanders to win?
Or does he win? I personally think that if he enters, either him or Sanders will take the nomination. I would prefer Biden over Sanders.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-beau-2016-214459
Biden doesn't have long to decide.
If he gets in the race, does he take half of Hillaries votes and then allow Sanders to win?
Or does he win? I personally think that if he enters, either him or Sanders will take the nomination. I would prefer Biden over Sanders.

I don't see Hilary taking the nom at this point anyway.  The Democratic machine knows that she's damaged goods, and that the Republican machine will hammer her on both Bengazi & the email server scandal relentlessly during the general.  I still like Professor Larry Lessig over most of them anyway, but he can't seem to get the media to give him any love.  The rules of the debate require at least 3 national polls with at least 1% support, but the media controls the polls, and they won't put him in it.

[Jeremy E.]

I'm 95% sure Biden will be announcing that he's running for president by tuesday, 50% sure he'll announce this weekend.

[Matt_D]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-beau-2016-214459
Biden doesn't have long to decide.
If he gets in the race, does he take half of Hillaries votes and then allow Sanders to win?
Or does he win? I personally think that if he enters, either him or Sanders will take the nomination. I would prefer Biden over Sanders.

I don't see Hilary taking the nom at this point anyway.  The Democratic machine knows that she's damaged goods, and that the Republican machine will hammer her on both Bengazi & the email server scandal relentlessly during the general.  I still like Professor Larry Lessig over most of them anyway, but he can't seem to get the media to give him any love.  The rules of the debate require at least 3 national polls with at least 1% support, but the media controls the polls, and they won't put him in it.

See http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/larry-no/409465/ for a pretty nice dissection of why Lessig's campaign not only won't work, but is generally a bad idea. Nothing against the guy particularly (he has some great ideas), but the way he's trying to do it just won't work.

[MoonShadow]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-beau-2016-214459
Biden doesn't have long to decide.
If he gets in the race, does he take half of Hillaries votes and then allow Sanders to win?
Or does he win? I personally think that if he enters, either him or Sanders will take the nomination. I would prefer Biden over Sanders.

I don't see Hilary taking the nom at this point anyway.  The Democratic machine knows that she's damaged goods, and that the Republican machine will hammer her on both Bengazi & the email server scandal relentlessly during the general.  I still like Professor Larry Lessig over most of them anyway, but he can't seem to get the media to give him any love.  The rules of the debate require at least 3 national polls with at least 1% support, but the media controls the polls, and they won't put him in it.

See http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/larry-no/409465/ for a pretty nice dissection of why Lessig's campaign not only won't work, but is generally a bad idea. Nothing against the guy particularly (he has some great ideas), but the way he's trying to do it just won't work.

That's a fine opinion piece.  Probably right, too.

Probably, but maybe not.  A lot of well established political assumptions have already been upended this cycle.

[regulator]

Fred for dictator President!

http://fredoneverything.org/fred-for-dictator-good-as-any-bettern-some/

[MoonShadow]

Fred for dictator President!

http://fredoneverything.org/fred-for-dictator-good-as-any-bettern-some/

He might give Don Trump a run for the top in the Republican race.

[Jeremy E.]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/politics/john-kasich-get-over-it-social-security/
I think this article is meant to hurt Kasich rather than help him. But it only made me like him more. I'm kind of sad that I'm the only person on this poll to vote for him, o well.

[Matt_D]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/09/politics/john-kasich-get-over-it-social-security/
I think this article is meant to hurt Kasich rather than help him. But it only made me like him more. I'm kind of sad that I'm the only person on this poll to vote for him, o well.

I disagree with Kasich on a bunch of things, but in my mind he is actually one of the most qualified out of the entire Republican field (though he probably won't get the nomination).

I think he is correct that social security needs some reform - but I think it needs to be on both sides (higher max-out levels and/or percentages on the contribution side, plus changing the retirement age/benefit amount), whereas I suspect he joins most Republican officials in only wanting to do the subtraction of benefits, and not the addition of funds.

[TechMike]

I really like Lawrence Lessig. Too bad he doesn't stand a remote chance in hell.

[Jeremy E.]

I watched the first half of the democratic debate last night. In my opinion they are all great speakers and they all did pretty well, even if I don't agree with most of their policies. Jim Webb is the only politician I've heard support nuclear power, which is pretty cool. I think nuclear is a much better option than wind. I believe that nuclear and solar are the future. I'm guessing that the polls over the next few weeks will show Sanders gain about 5%, Clinton lose about 10% and Chafee, O'Malley and Webb will all gain about 1-3%.

[Kris]

All I can say is, it was refreshing to see a debate where they were actually discussion issues.  I realized it had been quite a while since I'd seen that.  I went to bed feeling just a tiny, tiny bit better about things.

[Matt_D]

I'm guessing that the polls over the next few weeks will show Sanders gain about 5%, Clinton lose about 10% and Chafee, O'Malley and Webb will all gain about 1-3%.

Generally concur with your guesstimates, but I'll predict a bit more for Sanders, and a bit more for Webb and O'Malley. Call it: Sanders +8, O'Malley and Webb +5 each, and Chafee +1-2. Exposure for everyone not name Hillary will help, but the bottom three (and especially Chafee) didn't seem to do much to distinguish themselves. Clinton actually appears to have done better than expected, but really she had nowhere to go but down unless Sanders totally bombed it.

(All of that said, I didn't actually watch the debate - so I'm basing my guesses on others' reactions).

[dramaman]

I question whether much will change in the polls. Clinton may actually get a bit of a bump considering her good performance.

[Matt_D]

I question whether much will change in the polls. Clinton may actually get a bit of a bump considering her good performance.

I don't think anybody doubts she did well - but at this point in the game it's mostly about name recognition, and everyone already knows her name. Also, early focus groups rated Sanders very highly at the expense of Clinton.

[Jeremy E.]

Biden will probably lose some traction from not being in the debate.