Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[Jack]

I think the most "interesting" outcome would be if Trump wins the Republican primary and Hillary wins the Democrat primary, but then they both get indicted before the general (Trump for his "Trump U" scam and Hillary for the email espionage) prompting "third-party" challenges from both one of the establishment Republicans (Rubio or maybe even Romney) on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, causing a four-way clusterfuck of an election.

[MoonShadow]

Would you have voted for Rand Paul if he had stayed in the election, or, by some miracle, become the nominee?

Probably.  I live in Rand's district, and have met the man more than once.  Well, in the sense that I've seen his speeches in person, and have shaken his hand.  He actually sounds less libertarian since winning the senate seat than he did prior, which I tend to suspect that is more political stragety than an honest change of opinion; which would just make him a liar, so generally more trustworthy than most.

[Jeremy E.]

I think it is pretty safe to assume trump will win the nomination and judging by enthusiasm (absolute number of Rep vs Dem primary votes in swing states(look at Virginia)) I think he will win the nomination and the general. Which basically leads me to believe the republican party will not hold together.

Relevant article and best quote from it, 
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gop-rip/

"The Republican Party as we know it is not going to survive this year, and in fact is already dead. If Trump gets the most delegates and is denied the nomination somehow, that’ll tear the party apart. If Trump gets the nomination, it’s going to tear the party apart. If Trump gets the nomination and wins the presidency, it’s going to tear the party apart."

Maybe we discussed this earlier, I've read so much lately, but I cannot remember for sure.

I don't know, Rubio could still get most delegates, and if he doesn't, but Trump doesn't get half of the delegates and Rubio wins in brokered convention, I don't think it would tear the party apart. Also I don't think turnouts for the nomination equate to turnouts for the general election. A lot more people come out for the general and I think a lot more people HATE Trump than Hillary.

[GuitarStv]

I think the most "interesting" outcome would be if Trump wins the Republican primary and Hillary wins the Democrat party, but then they both get indicted before the general (Trump for his "Trump U" scam and Hillary for the email espionage) prompting "third-party" challenges from both one of the establishment Republicans (Rubio or maybe even Romney) on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, causing a four-way clusterfuck of an election.

Stop raising people's hopes with best case scenarios.

[Jeremy E.]

I think the most "interesting" outcome would be if Trump wins the Republican primary and Hillary wins the Democrat party, but then they both get indicted before the general (Trump for his "Trump U" scam and Hillary for the email espionage) prompting "third-party" challenges from both one of the establishment Republicans (Rubio or maybe even Romney) on the right and Bernie Sanders on the left, causing a four-way clusterfuck of an election.

This would be awesome, I would be so happy. Maybe Gary Johnson would even have a chance. Bloomberg would be in it for sure.

[MoonShadow]

I can't find who complained about it now, but concerning Trump's popularity today versus in November; keep in mind that Regan lost his first 3 primaries, but still proceeded to roll over everyone.  The Republican party establishment also tried to stop his rise, because they didn't believe he had a chance in the general, either.  This belief was based partly on his polling numbers, as (at the time) the public generally regarded Regan as a crazy old codger who was just blowing his acting fortune, and that his popularity as governor of California wouldn't translate to the rest of the nation. 

They were, obviously, very wrong.  Well, about the winning part, not the crazy old codger part.

[MoonShadow]

I don't know, Rubio could still get most delegates, and if he doesn't, but Trump doesn't get half of the delegates and Rubio wins in brokered convention, I don't think it would tear the party apart. Also I don't think turnouts for the nomination equate to turnouts for the general election. A lot more people come out for the general and I think a lot more people HATE Trump than Hillary.

Mathematically, Rubio still has a chance.  Practically speaking, the best he (or the party establishment) can hope for is Rubio getting the VP slot at a brokered convention, because they can't trump Trump (ha!) without Cruz doing well also, and he isn't going to take VP to Rubio, and if he doesn't endorse someone else, Cruz's delegates will vote for whomever they please after the 2nd failed vote.  Different states lock their delegates to a different number of votes, but generally, the earlier the primary in the season, the fewer the failed votes required.  Thus, if early delegates are free to vote before the majority, some of them will vote for Trump & he will still win.  This weekend will tell much, because there are 3 closed events, so no cross-party "operation Chaos" type activities will happen, and we will get a better picture of what actual Republicans think about Trump, Cruz & Rubio.

[Jeremy E.]

I don't know, Rubio could still get most delegates, and if he doesn't, but Trump doesn't get half of the delegates and Rubio wins in brokered convention, I don't think it would tear the party apart. Also I don't think turnouts for the nomination equate to turnouts for the general election. A lot more people come out for the general and I think a lot more people HATE Trump than Hillary.

Mathematically, Rubio still has a chance.  Practically speaking, the best he (or the party establishment) can hope for is Rubio getting the VP slot at a brokered convention, because they can't trump Trump (ha!) without Cruz doing well also, and he isn't going to take VP to Rubio, and if he doesn't endorse someone else, Cruz's delegates will vote for whomever they please after the 2nd failed vote.  Different states lock their delegates to a different number of votes, but generally, the earlier the primary in the season, the fewer the failed votes required.  Thus, if early delegates are free to vote before the majority, some of them will vote for Trump & he will still win.  This weekend will tell much, because there are 3 closed events, so no cross-party "operation Chaos" type activities will happen, and we will get a better picture of what actual Republicans think about Trump, Cruz & Rubio.

Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment, in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it. The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.

[nereo]

I don't know, Rubio could still get most delegates, and if he doesn't, but Trump doesn't get half of the delegates and Rubio wins in brokered convention, I don't think it would tear the party apart. Also I don't think turnouts for the nomination equate to turnouts for the general election. A lot more people come out for the general and I think a lot more people HATE Trump than Hillary.

Mathematically, Rubio still has a chance.  Practically speaking, the best he (or the party establishment) can hope for is Rubio getting the VP slot at a brokered convention, because they can't trump Trump (ha!) without Cruz doing well also, and he isn't going to take VP to Rubio, and if he doesn't endorse someone else, Cruz's delegates will vote for whomever they please after the 2nd failed vote.  Different states lock their delegates to a different number of votes, but generally, the earlier the primary in the season, the fewer the failed votes required.  Thus, if early delegates are free to vote before the majority, some of them will vote for Trump & he will still win.  This weekend will tell much, because there are 3 closed events, so no cross-party "operation Chaos" type activities will happen, and we will get a better picture of what actual Republicans think about Trump, Cruz & Rubio.

Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment, in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it. The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.

Agreed, but first he has to win Florida.  Most of the states after March 15th are winner-take-all.  If Rubio takes Florida and Kasich wins Ohio I think Trump will have a hard time getting the 1,237 deligates he needs to win uncontested.  Right now though Trump could steamroll through both of those.

[MoonShadow]

Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,

I agree with this.

in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.

But not this.  A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results.  As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz.  Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength.  Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement.  If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly.  At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely.  If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio.  Advantage Trump.

The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.

He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.

[arebelspy]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/gop-rip/

Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing!

[Jeremy E.]

Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,

I agree with this.

in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.

But not this.  A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results.  As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz.  Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength.  Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement.  If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly.  At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely.  If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio.  Advantage Trump.

The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.

He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.

I would bet a lot of money that Rubio will have waaay more delegates than Cruz at the convention, I doubt Cruz will even be in the race.
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination
according to this Rubio has better odds than Cruz too

[MoonShadow]

Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,

I agree with this.

in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.

But not this.  A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results.  As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz.  Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength.  Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement.  If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly.  At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely.  If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio.  Advantage Trump.

The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.

He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.

I would bet a lot of money that Rubio will have waaay more delegates than Cruz at the convention, I doubt Cruz will even be in the race.
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination
according to this Rubio has better odds than Cruz too

This wouldn't be the first wager I've made this season, what would you like to wager?

[MoonShadow]

Also, someone finally asked a relevant question regarding Trump.  Not here of course...

https://www.quora.com/What-is-Donald-Trump-like-in-person#ans18009875

Notice, if you will, every first hand account is pretty much the same.  That Donald Trump is a shrewd & professional businessman, in person.  The public image of a bombastic blowhard is just that, a public image.

[Glenstache]

Also, someone finally asked a relevant question regarding Trump.  Not here of course...

https://www.quora.com/What-is-Donald-Trump-like-in-person#ans18009875

Notice, if you will, every first hand account is pretty much the same.  That Donald Trump is a shrewd & professional businessman, in person.  The public image of a bombastic blowhard is just that, a public image.

That was pretty interesting to read. I would not say that they were all the same though. They ranged from fanboy ohmygodIjustmetdonaldtrumpmylifeiscomplete to "I can't say I've ever met a person who made my skin crawl like Trump did." The picture I see painted in whole is a person who is capable of being charismatic, who does what he needs to to make a deal, and who can be a vindictive asshole if crossed or slighted. Political platforms aside, this is about what we knew about him before. We have seen all of these sides of him during the primaries including: a rather charismatic interview with Colbert; changes on stances as needed ("I'm changing. I'm changing." as of last night) to be expedient; and his removal of protesters from his rallies with the added bonus that their jackets be taken from them before throwing them out into freezing temperatures. I don't think even Ayn Rand would like him.

[Kris]

Also, someone finally asked a relevant question regarding Trump.  Not here of course...

https://www.quora.com/What-is-Donald-Trump-like-in-person#ans18009875

Notice, if you will, every first hand account is pretty much the same.  That Donald Trump is a shrewd & professional businessman, in person.  The public image of a bombastic blowhard is just that, a public image.

That was pretty interesting to read. I would not say that they were all the same though. They ranged from fanboy ohmygodIjustmetdonaldtrumpmylifeiscomplete to "I can't say I've ever met a person who made my skin crawl like Trump did." The picture I see painted in whole is a person who is capable of being charismatic, who does what he needs to to make a deal, and who can be a vindictive asshole if crossed or slighted. Political platforms aside, this is about what we knew about him before. We have seen all of these sides of him during the primaries including: a rather charismatic interview with Colbert; changes on stances as needed ("I'm changing. I'm changing." as of last night) to be expedient; and his removal of protesters from his rallies with the added bonus that their jackets be taken from them before throwing them out into freezing temperatures. I don't think even Ayn Rand would like him.

This is my read, as well.

[MoonShadow]

Also, someone finally asked a relevant question regarding Trump.  Not here of course...

https://www.quora.com/What-is-Donald-Trump-like-in-person#ans18009875

Notice, if you will, every first hand account is pretty much the same.  That Donald Trump is a shrewd & professional businessman, in person.  The public image of a bombastic blowhard is just that, a public image.

That was pretty interesting to read. I would not say that they were all the same though. They ranged from fanboy ohmygodIjustmetdonaldtrumpmylifeiscomplete to "I can't say I've ever met a person who made my skin crawl like Trump did." The picture I see painted in whole is a person who is capable of being charismatic, who does what he needs to to make a deal, and who can be a vindictive asshole if crossed or slighted. Political platforms aside, this is about what we knew about him before. We have seen all of these sides of him during the primaries including: a rather charismatic interview with Colbert; changes on stances as needed ("I'm changing. I'm changing." as of last night) to be expedient; and his removal of protesters from his rallies with the added bonus that their jackets be taken from them before throwing them out into freezing temperatures. I don't think even Ayn Rand would like him.

This is my read, as well.

Interesting, indeed.

[mrpercentage]

They should hold a Rep and Dem debate. Demi's get to ask a Rep a question and debate it. Rep get to ask the Dems. I have the feeling some candidates would be eaten for lunch

It just might be the honest conversation America needs. Make it 4 hours

So far the media is blamed. Other than moderating time spent by candidates let them debate their own issues and show us who they really are

[nnls]

A question from an ignorant Australian.

I did a quick google and it seems there are only four current political parties in the USA (gathered from here http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/ )
- Republicans
- Democrats
- Libertarian Party
- Constitution Party

So does this mean that when time comes to vote you will have a choice of four presidential candidates?

Sorry I don't know a lot about the USA's voting presidential system and I never seem to hear anything about other political parties besides the Republicans and Democrats, where as in Australia we have quite a few parties and we hear about quite a few of them

[LeRainDrop]

A question from an ignorant Australian.

I did a quick google and it seems there are only four current political parties in the USA (gathered from here http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/ )
- Republicans
- Democrats
- Libertarian Party
- Constitution Party

So does this mean that when time comes to vote you will have a choice of four presidential candidates?

Sorry I don't know a lot about the USA's voting presidential system and I never seem to hear anything about other political parties besides the Republicans and Democrats, where as in Australia we have quite a few parties and we hear about quite a few of them

Hi, nnls!  Through most of the history of the United States, we have had two dominant political parties at any given time.  Since around the 1850s, our two major parties have been the Republicans and the Democrats (though their belief systems have evolved in various ways over those many years).  We have many "third parties" of which the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and the Green Party are just a few, but for the most part, the third parties get a very small percentage of votes.  There are discrete areas in the country where the third party candidates are more successful in getting a higher percentage of votes, but for the most part nationally, our representatives are either Republicans or Democrats.  When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states).

ETA:  Actually, one of the reasons why so many of us Americans get frustrated with this essentially two-party system is the tendency to feel stuck with voting for either the Republican or the Democrat because voting for a third party who has almost no chance of winning can feel like throwing your vote away; yet, at the same time, there is such a diversity of viewpoints even within the two major parties, so often you find that you disagree with the candidate for the party you feel closer to.  It's like, you feel stuck picking one of two, when odds are that you don't really agree with either of them.  Anyway, opinions on this will certainly differ.

[nnls]

A question from an ignorant Australian.

I did a quick google and it seems there are only four current political parties in the USA (gathered from here http://us-political-parties.insidegov.com/ )
- Republicans
- Democrats
- Libertarian Party
- Constitution Party

So does this mean that when time comes to vote you will have a choice of four presidential candidates?

Sorry I don't know a lot about the USA's voting presidential system and I never seem to hear anything about other political parties besides the Republicans and Democrats, where as in Australia we have quite a few parties and we hear about quite a few of them

Hi, nnls!  Through most of the history of the United States, we have had two dominant political parties at any given time.  Since around the 1850s, our two major parties have been the Republicans and the Democrats (though their belief systems have evolved in various ways over those many years).  We have many "third parties" of which the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and the Green Party are just a few, but for the most part, the third parties get a very small percentage of votes.  There are discrete areas in the country where the third party candidates are more successful in getting a higher percentage of votes, but for the most part nationally, our representatives are either Republicans or Democrats.

Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?

It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.

[LeRainDrop]

Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?

It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.

Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response:  When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states).  Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.

Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November.  Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me).  So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates.  For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates.  On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them.  In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.

[nnls]

Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?

It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.

Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response:  When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states).  Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.

Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November.  Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me).  So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates.  For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates.  On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them.  In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.

ok thanks, still confusing but a bit more clear now.

And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?

[yuka]

Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?

It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.

Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response:  When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states).  Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.

To go more into third parties, typically a candidate will either have to be one of the two major nominees (Democrat and Republican), or get enough signatures of <particular State> voters on a petition to be on the ballot for the general election; that number of signatures varies by State (the rules of it are totally up to them.)

Looking through results from the 2012 general election (http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/new-york/), you'll see anywhere between 4 and 6 candidates (maybe 3-8, I didn't check everyone). The most common 'third' parties are the libertarian (G. Johnson) and Green (J. Stein). Then you see a few constitution party, socialism and prosperity party, progressive, american independent, and so on. Almost all of these 'third' party candidates will fail to get even 1% of the vote in even their best State; the libertarian candidate often gets a little over 1%.

Looking back into recent history, the most important third-party candidate was the Ross Perot/VADM Stockdale candidacy in 1996, where the third-party candidates took over 8% of the vote. Still, because each State is a winner-take-all competition, Perot and Stockdale did not get a single electoral vote (271 needed to win.) However, it is a safe bet that a ticket (like the third-party one that year) comprised of the highest-ranking prisoner of war in Vietnam and a Texas billionaire would have been more popular with Republicans. So a lot of people will correctly point out that a good third-party candidate just splits the vote, ensuring that those voting for that candidate are doomed to get their least-favorite option.

In  2016, there is talk that Michael Bloomberg will join as a third party candidate. He has the potential to take a lot of votes from the Democrat. Gary Johnson will likely be the libertarian candidate, and will take his predictable 1-2% of the vote; a majority of those will come from the Republican candidate, but it wouldn't be nearly as significant as the effect Bloomberg might have.

Having said that, I can't stand either the sociopath or the obscene narcissist who will the two nominees, so I'm likely voting for the third party candidate.

[yuka]

Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?

It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.

Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response:  When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states).  Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.

Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November.  Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me).  So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates.  For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates.  On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them.  In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.

ok thanks, still confusing but a bit more clear now.

And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?

We vote for just one person in each category at the national and state levels. Some localities do rank order preference voting, most commonly for things like board of supervisors or school board where multiple equal positions are being filled.

People also tend to get confused during big election years because of all the different overlapping election regions and the significant advertising in some races. In 2012, we had a big Congressional race happening ten miles East of my town that had national attention and huge advertising. Meanwhile, no one heard anything about our race because the congressman in my district has been in office since 1993 and gets at least 60% of the vote every election. So a lot of people showed up to the polls and asked 'Why aren't Mr. X or Mr. Y on here?', and they'd probably never heard of the guy they ended up voting for when told that Mr. X and Mr. Y weren't options in their town.

[LeRainDrop]

Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?

It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.

Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response:  When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states).  Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.

Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November.  Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me).  So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates.  For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates.  On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them.  In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.

ok thanks, still confusing but a bit more clear now.

And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?

Yeah, sorry, it really is pretty confusing.  Mostly people know it like this:  We have two main parties.  Between February and June, the parties in each state will hold their preferential primary election or caucus to let the people indicate who they want to be their party's one single candidate for the November "general election" -- at this stage, each person can only vote for one candidate (i.e., I could choose one of the two Democrats OR I could choose one of the four Republicans BUT I could not choose one Democrat and one Republican).  Based on those votes, each candidate wins (or doesn't win) delegates for later.  Then, in late July, the Republicans and the Democrats will each hold a convention that is attended by the delegates and at which the delegates officially place their votes for the party's single candidate.  Only one winner per party can get their name on the final election ballots for November.  (Alternatively, it is possible for a candidate who loses their party's nomination to decide to run as an Independent candidate and therefore still get on the ballot, but just not associated with their former party's name.)

In November, for federal positions (such as President, U.S. Senate, and U.S. House of Representatives), each citizen votes for only a single candidate, no preference order voting.  (And I would note that Senators have six year terms, so about 1/3 of them are up for reelection every two years -- meaning your state may have one senator up this year, the other up in two years, and then no one up two years from that.)  It doesn't have to be for the candidate of the party you previously supported, and it is secret ballot (which I'm pretty sure is something our country adopted from yours).

[nnls]

Thanks everyone for helping clear it up a bit :)

[Jeremy E.]

Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,

I agree with this.

in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.

But not this.  A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results.  As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz.  Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength.  Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement.  If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly.  At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely.  If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio.  Advantage Trump.

The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.

He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.

I would bet a lot of money that Rubio will have waaay more delegates than Cruz at the convention, I doubt Cruz will even be in the race.
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination
according to this Rubio has better odds than Cruz too

This wouldn't be the first wager I've made this season, what would you like to wager?

we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz

[Jack]

And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?

The fact that we vote for just one person, not in preference order, is (one of the reasons) why we end up with two dominant political parties in the first place.

I'll illustrate with an example:

Let's say the two dominant political parties are A and B, and there also exists minor party C. Your actual preference as a voter is C, then A, then B. In your Australian system, you just note that preference and if C loses then it doesn't hurt A. But in the American system, a vote for C is a lost vote for A, which makes B more likely to win. Because of that, people are scared of voting for C (or D, or E) and the dominance of A and B are perpetuated.

[arebelspy]

we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz

You could wager an "X amount of time" forum ban.  ;)

[Jeremy E.]

we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz

You could wager an "X amount of time" forum ban.  ;)

lol never thought of that, I'd be down for 2 weeks or something, a low information diet could be nice for a bit.

Edit: Dang, I hadn't listened to last debate, but I just heard Rubio was sick and had no energy and Cruz did well. Bad news for me

[nereo]

we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz

You could wager an "X amount of time" forum ban.  ;)

I'd rather wager a post card from the loser.  Banning one another from the forum (even voluntarily) silences one person's voice and opinions for a while, which seems counterproductive for a forum where we debate things ad nauseum

'Rebs - I'd wager you a post card regarding your earlier post that "if Trump gets the nomination he will beat Hillary in the general election."

[arebelspy]

What's your counter prediction?  Hillary beats Trump if they're the two nominees?  And bet is off if the matchup is anyone except those two exactly?

If that's it, you're on!  :D

In November, I should be somewhere in Southeast Asia.

[beltim]

What's your counter prediction?  Hillary beats Trump if they're the two nominees?  And bet is off if the matchup is anyone except those two exactly?

If that's it, you're on!  :D

In November, I should be somewhere in Southeast Asia.

I will take that bet.

[arebelspy]

Whoah, whoah, I don't know that I can afford TWO post cards.  :D

[beltim]

Whoah, whoah, I don't know that I can afford TWO post cards.  :D

Ah, but I guarantee I'll be moving before then, and I don't know where.  So it will be a mystery destination as well!

[nereo]

What's your counter prediction?  Hillary beats Trump if they're the two nominees?  And bet is off if the matchup is anyone except those two exactly?

If that's it, you're on!  :D

In November, I should be somewhere in Southeast Asia.

Yes that is my prediction and the bet.  If the match-up is between Hillary and Trump than I believe Hillary will win.  If it's not between those two candidates the bet is called off.

In November I will likely be somewhere in North America.
N

[Jeremy E.]

What's your counter prediction?  Hillary beats Trump if they're the two nominees?  And bet is off if the matchup is anyone except those two exactly?

If that's it, you're on!  :D

In November, I should be somewhere in Southeast Asia.

I think you should get some better odds on this, Hillary is already expected to beat Trump quite handily, I think they should have to send a postcard with a bunch of cool stamps on it

[nereo]

What's your counter prediction?  Hillary beats Trump if they're the two nominees?  And bet is off if the matchup is anyone except those two exactly?

If that's it, you're on!  :D

In November, I should be somewhere in Southeast Asia.

I think you should get some better odds on this, Hillary is already expected to beat Trump quite handily, I think they should have to send a postcard with a bunch of cool stamps on it

a stamp from east asia will be cool enough for me ;-)
Hillary is polling ahead in a 1-1 matchup with Donald, but politics is a strange, unpredictable river and you can never know where the next 6 months will take us.  Oddly, I'm not even supporting Hillary (though I detest Trump). 

[ransom132]

Voting Hilary or Trump is like voting for who is the least likely to burry the US into the ground instead who will be the better choice as a president.

[Jeremy E.]

Voting Hilary or Trump is like voting for who is the least likely to burry the US into the ground instead who will be the better choice as a president.

Agreed, it's like that South Park episode, should you even vote if the choices are a douche and a turd sandwich?

[sol]

Voting Hilary or Trump is like voting for who is the least likely to burry the US into the ground instead who will be the better choice as a president.

See, this logic confuses me.

I can clearly articulate why I think Trump is a bad candidate.  He has zero political experience.  He has no record on positions, and no specific proposals for how he would govern.  He has a long history of personally denigrating people who espouse contrary opinions, rather than attacking those opinions themselves.  He's been a failure at business and at marriage.  He ran the Miss American pageants, which I find sexist and demeaning.  He's openly called for banning religious freedom.

With Clinton, I have a harder time explaining all the hatred.  She has decades of political experience, during which she has consistently supported the same ideals .  She has a voting record and a long history of public policy position, and those positions look very much like the status quo.  She's not going to radically change anything that we currently do.  Her husband was kind of slimeball in his sex life, but that's hardly a reflection on her qualifications as a politician.  She's not a perfect candidate, but she's at least a competent one, so I don't get this whole "likely to bury the US in the ground" rhetoric at all.

Can some of you Hillary-haters explain what you expect she would do, if elected, to ruin America?  What specific policy proposals or changes do you fear a President Clinton would visit upon us?

[arebelspy]

Sol: I know you're a Hillary supporter, and you've asked before what people have against her, so while I can't answer your above question (I agree that the "run America into the ground" is hyperbole), I can tell you some of the things that bother me about her:

I think Hillary will continue the terrible civil rights violations started by GW and continued and extended by Obama, specifically re: The Patriot Act, the NSA, TSA, Department of Homeland Security.

I think Hillary is owned by Wall Street, and will continue moving America towards an oligarchy controlled by a few elite corporations and their lobbyists.

However, I just fear she is more of the same, as bad or worse as the last two, and marching us down a path of 1984-esque dystopian ideals.

I think nearly any candidate from either major party would do the same, though she will be even more blatant about it, because she's known to be that way, and will still have been elected (if she is), so she'll take that as tacit approval.  I think the two parties are very similar when it comes to many major issues (campaign finance, big government being a few), and they play up the more minor ones to divide voters.

[Jeremy E.]

Voting Hilary or Trump is like voting for who is the least likely to burry the US into the ground instead who will be the better choice as a president.

See, this logic confuses me.

I can clearly articulate why I think Trump is a bad candidate.  He has zero political experience.  He has no record on positions, and no specific proposals for how he would govern.  He has a long history of personally denigrating people who espouse contrary opinions, rather than attacking those opinions themselves.  He's been a failure at business and at marriage.  He ran the Miss American pageants, which I find sexist and demeaning.  He's openly called for banning religious freedom.

With Clinton, I have a harder time explaining all the hatred.  She has decades of political experience, during which she has consistently supported the same ideals .  She has a voting record and a long history of public policy position, and those positions look very much like the status quo.  She's not going to radically change anything that we currently do.  Her husband was kind of slimeball in his sex life, but that's hardly a reflection on her qualifications as a politician.  She's not a perfect candidate, but she's at least a competent one, so I don't get this whole "likely to bury the US in the ground" rhetoric at all.

Can some of you Hillary-haters explain what you expect she would do, if elected, to ruin America?  What specific policy proposals or changes do you fear a President Clinton would visit upon us?

increasing spending, increasing the debt to gdp ratio. I feel the "status quo" has issues that need fixed. She probably won't ruin America, but will probably bring us closer to the brink

[sol]

She probably won't ruin America, but will probably bring us closer to the brink

More so than Trump?  Or even Cruz/Rubio?  If anything, I think Clinton is the slow road to ruin instead of the Donald Trump Expressway.

[Jeremy E.]

She probably won't ruin America, but will probably bring us closer to the brink

More so than Trump?  Or even Cruz/Rubio?  If anything, I think Clinton is the slow road to ruin instead of the Donald Trump Expressway.

In order of preference for the 4 mentioned, I'd say I prefer Rubio, with Cruz and Clinton tying for 2nd/3rd, and Trump in last. That being said, I think all of them will bring us closer to the brink.

[Jack]

Can some of you Hillary-haters explain what you expect she would do, if elected, to ruin America?  What specific policy proposals or changes do you fear a President Clinton would visit upon us?

She'd campaign for passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would destroy private property rights; harm free speech, Fair Use, and whistleblowing; subjugate national governments to multinational corporations; harm workers and unions, accelerating the 'race to the bottom' in wages and labor safety standards; and weaken environmental protections.

(Hillary is currently claiming to oppose the TPP in an attempt to sway Sanders voters, but she'll flip back to supporting it instantaneously upon winning the primary.)

[MoonShadow]

Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?

As for myself, In Kentucky, a political party is qualified to be on the statewide ballot for 4 years if their candidate can get at least 2% of the total votes during the previous presidential election.  Typically, this results in Republican, Democrats & Libertarians; and occasionally a Constitutionalists or Green.  I generally end up voting for the Libertarian candidate for this reason, and because I can rarely stomach the two major choices.

[MoonShadow]

Thanks LeRainDrop, so does this mean that their will be four names on your ballot paper for President?Who ever each party nominates?

It all seems to work very different in Australia and I am still kinda struggling to get why super Tuesday was even such a big deal.

Sorry, I edited to add this part while you were already reading my original response:  When it comes to presidential voting, all candidates who qualify will be listed on the ballot -- but note that ballot qualification is under the state's rules, so different states may see slightly different lists of presidential candidates (basically, some third parties exist in some states but not in other states).  Typically, you will see the Democrat, the Republican, possibly an Independent, and probably some out of the Libertarian, Green, or another third party.

Super Tuesday was a "big deal" because several states had their primary elections where each party votes among its own candidates to decide who will be the single candidate for that party in the general election in November.  Whenever a state has its primary election (or in some cases, its caucus), then the number of that state's delegates get assigned (to sort of simplify a complicated process that most of us probably don't 100% understand, including me).  So, on Super Tuesday, many of those delegates got assigned to the candidates.  For example, the entire country of the Republican Party has 2,472 delegates.  On Super Tuesday, 11 of our 50 states voted, and those 11 states had 600 delegates between them.  In short, Super Tuesday was big for Republicans because on that day, 600 out of the 2,472 delegates were decided.

ok thanks, still confusing but a bit more clear now.

And when you vote for president and for your senators do you just vote for one person, or is it like in Australia where you vote in preference order, so from say 1-4 ?

No, we call this 'instant run-off voting' and it would be a great improvement, but that can't happen with a presidential election without an amendment to the US Constitution.  Our senators have nothing to do with the electoral process.

[MoonShadow]

Practically speaking, he can hope for more than a VP slot at a brokered convention, he can hope for a president spot. Rubio is establishment, the delegates are mostly establishment,

I agree with this.

in a brokered convention with Trump not getting the majority, Rubio will likely snag it.

But not this.  A brokered convention does have established rules of order, many of which are beyond the power of the national convention to change, such as the individual state's rules about how many votes their delegates are locked into the state's results.  As I see it, a brokered convention does not favor Rubio for president, it favors Cruz.  Mostly because Cruz has more delegates at the moment, and therefore can bargain from a greater position of strength.  Cruz is not an establishment candidate, and the establishment knows that, and might be as likely to endorse Trump in exchange for VP himself; such an official endorsement implies a deal, and sort-of shifts the obligations of Cruz's delegates towards his endorsement.  If Rubio were to win Florida, and overtake Cruz in the absolute number of delegates, my perspective would change accordingly.  At the moment, however, I don't consider that likely.  If Cruz (as an anti-establishment candidate) were to drop out now, the vast majority of his 'anti-establishment' voter base would either vote for Trump or not at all, but not for Rubio.  Advantage Trump.

The primaries thus far have been mainly not favoring Rubio, he'll do much better in north states and eastern states.

He might, and that might force me to reconsider my predictions, but I don't think that he will do better enough to change the trajectory of this process.

I would bet a lot of money that Rubio will have waaay more delegates than Cruz at the convention, I doubt Cruz will even be in the race.
http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-republican-nomination
according to this Rubio has better odds than Cruz too

This wouldn't be the first wager I've made this season, what would you like to wager?

we could wager bragging rights, I'm saying Rubio will end up with more delegates than Cruz

Bragging rights, it is then.  I'll be happy to take Cruz for the higher delegate count leading into the Republican national convention.