A Bag of Milk posted:

The 22nd amendment only says a president can't get elected more than twice. Since a vice president doesn't become president through election it should still be legal.

joeburz posted:

Hillary + Castro transitioning into first Latino prez in 2024.

Induced demographic change from massive nationwide aneurysms.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Nativity In Black posted:

I'd like to imagine that every member of every union ever would vote against Walker, but I think the last 6 years have proved that working class Republicans are perfectly fine with voting against their own interest.

Jackson Taus posted:

Teddy Roosevelt was technically a Republican.

blackmet posted:

What is with all this Republican anti-vax poo poo anyway?

Aren't most of these anti-vax people kind of crunchy, new agey, Whole Foods shopping granola liberals? Who generally tend to vote Democrat, and probably won't switch sides? Why are they going after those votes?

happyhippy posted:

Little bit of vaccines hamper the profits of our insurance/medical care campaign donors.

mlmp08 posted:

Ceeeeeeeeelebrate good times come on!

My mom used to do video editing and filming, lots of wedding jobs. As a result, as kids we got that poo poo played for hours and hours while she was editing.

V. Illych L. posted:

and in any individual case, their voting tactically would have accomplished absolutely nothing

Seriously, even in small countries and local elections, single votes don't matter - if the situation is such that a single vote would matter, the situation comes up for a judicial review or a re-election anyway. Voting tactically makes no sense in any world unless you're part of a collective effort to do so - if you want the Democrats to win, then campaign for them. A couple of hundred votes might conceivably help in some way. Your individual vote does not.

Deteriorata posted:

Propositions and local measures are not party-based, generally. In a race with a 3rd party candidate, voting third party will have exactly the same effect as voting for no one.

Winter Stormer posted:

That seems like exactly the sort of situation where it'd be great if the big cities kept getting bluer forever, though? Is Wisconsin governor not a straight statewide popular vote?

Deteriorata posted:

This is how we get minority white governments running majority black cities, like Ferguson, MO. The people who think their vote doesn't matter don't vote, and the people that do end up running the place.

There actually is a difference between 0.000001 and 0. Add enough 0.000001s together and you get a meaningful number. This is why political parties exist - collective action by large groups of people (like all voting the same way) have impact on the world where isolated individuals do not.

MariusLecter posted:

Wasn't Maher the inspiration for the Brian character in Family Guy?

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

How is an election that was affected by depleted turnout (even moreso than a typical midterm) meaningless for overall trends? Those Dem core constituencies didn't show up to vote for a reason.

Gyges posted:

He wasn't a good guy, but holy poo poo was he entertaining in a 80s action movie fashion. He was an insane mix of both the 80s action villain and hero. Fighting for some of the people by almost unfathomably loving over other people.

Dr.Zeppelin posted:

Yes except this is part of a continuing trend in a decline of voter participation

ZeeToo posted:

Are you proposing that Hillary Clinton will run pro-Obama while Vice President Joseph "Literally Obama's Vice President" Biden won't?

Nintendo Kid posted:

1820, when only 15 out of 24 states had a popular vote for president.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

This is why I hold the belief that the only way to win in the long run is by electing a Republican
In 2016. Better to have those coattails on a non-Census year and at least have a chance of blaming the next economic crisis on the Republicans than take the one-two punch of an economic crisis leading to a one-term Hillary and Republican wave in 2020. Plus, a loss forces Dems to play for Congress and state houses in 2018, which are both far more necessary than trying to get 51 in 2016 only to be guaranteed to lose it again in 2018 in Hillary's midterm.

Granted, this means Republicans have incumbency going into 2020, but incumbent coattails aren't going to help Ernst and her class as much as they would gain from an economic crisis in 2017.

Now it's true that you lose Ginsberg's seat on SCOTUS but you aren't getting a new Warren Court until Scalia kicks the bucket anyway. And he's not going to until there's a Republican in the White House anyway, so it's a moot point.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Of course the real answer is that Republicans will win in 2020 no matter who wins 2016. Hillary loses if the economy crashes, so a Republican president in 2016 gets to be portrayed as saving the economy and safely avoids having to deal with it happening on his watch so he has a safer time with incumbency in 2020. Conversely, a Hillary win means the economy hasn't crashed, and then that means she gets the blame and loses 2020 when it does.

The only possibly way Republicans lose 2020 is if the economy miraculously fails to enter a recession for 11 years straight after 2009 [very unlikely; the longest period was during the 1990s and that was only 10 years], Hillary somehow avoids the blame for it [very unlikely with Republicans blocking any meaningful financial assistance for a recovery], or Republicans win in 2016 without the economy going bust [somewhat unlikely; basically means some other poo poo sandwich has to happen, like a terrorist attack]

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Can you be absolutely certain of that? Both presidents in question also happen to have presided over recessions that ended during their term in office. Now, I'll give you that H.W. was riding high after that recession ended, and may have pulled off a win, but then again, "It's the economy, stupid".

Carter's recession literally lasted almost his entire presidency and did not end until the January of the year he was voted out, so the economic case there is only stronger.

Dongattack posted:

gentlemen, please suggest to me a president

he's gotta be strong
and he's gotta be fast
and he's gotta be fresh from the fight

Wheeee posted:

In a strict two party system abstaining from voting for the lesser of two evils is effectively casting a vote for the greater.

Pohl posted:

Ummm, no Tea Party candidate has a shot at the presidential nod. The Republican party might be a little bit more divided than normal at the moment, but they are far more cohesive than the Democratic party.
Remember the old saying by Will Rogers? "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

PupsOfWar posted:

Republicans are fine with terrible jobs numbers so long as the people losing their jobs are blacks and jewesses

Pohl posted:

You are from Idaho too, right? No one loving cares about job numbers. Seriously, no one cares.
Well, they might care if they are unemployed; but gently caress that guy, he is unemployed. What a lazy gently caress.

Joementum posted:

But his brother was a two term President and nobody would claim public speaking was his forte either....

Quidam Viator posted:

I believe the only thing that can destroy conservative policy in this country is giving the GOP complete support and free rein in implementing it. You get a lot of blighted land, dead people, and misery, and with it, hopefully a change of heart that can only come from the kind of suffering Americans have forgotten about. When bad people get full control, they go permanently out of style. I guess you noticed that nobody names their babies Adolf anymore.

Quidam Viator posted:

And you don't think that our political parties have taken advantage of the slowness of our system to create a gridlock that is extremely beneficial for the wealthy? Like your only emotion about this is glee because I'm getting worked up and worried that we have genuine financial and ecological catastrophes barrelling down on us?

Quidam Viator posted:

There's no masturbation or glee in any of this.

Aliquid posted:

so why can't we skip the fascist genocides and go straight to Full Communism instead? it seems like an...unnecessary step, to say the least

redshirt posted:

Only an alien invasion can save us from the Republican party, I fear.

Quidam Viator posted:

my entire premise is that it's possible to kill a virulent ideology by showing what happens when it takes control.

V. Illych L. posted:

so are y'all saying that the democrats would fix global warming if they had complete political power in the us

like, really

Quidam Viator posted:

Give me just a few million like her, willing to risk her life to stand up, take public office, and die in defense of equality under the law for all, and I'll gladly sit down and shut up. You have good taste.

De Nomolos posted:

City council socialists, you say? Surely this will mean much to the uninsured of Mississippi and translate to gains for those living in the poorest states.

Cities and non-cities in the US are on different planets.

bpower posted:

I'll like to see the wording on the climate question. Do they actually claim to believe its not happening at all? I thought the deniers had given up that hill and are holding out on the "Its happening but...." hill

ufarn posted:

So, how big a percentage of this is racism, and how much is an obsolete idea of how Western monarchies work?

I could understand the Republicanism the Founding Fathers espoused based on the inspiration from Ancient Rome, but it's such a weird talking point for a European.