Will there be an October Surprise?

[BigRedBuster]

The Democrats did not nominate somebody nobody wanted. Hillary is a big name with a wide support base; she lost a close primary the last time the Democrats had a contested one. And while this time around it was closer than you might expect, she didn't win the nomination because nobody wanted her.

 

Let's move past that storyline.

 

Trump didn't win because nobody wanted him, either.

 

The only difference is the comparative power of the establishment. The voter base that Trump marshaled was strong enough to win, even though they had not been heard like this before; the voter base that Hillary reached likewise was strong enough, and more or less resembles every recent Democratic primary result.

Well, what you are describing is similar to my feelings. In the Republican party there is a certain amount of voters that love Trump and want him to be President.

 

However, I'm a firm believer that if you back up 16-20 years ago, Trump would have been laughed off the stage as the biggest joke in the Republican party as a candidate. This year, he wins. What has changed???

 

My opinion is the voters in the early to mid Primaries for some reason is what has changed. And...it's baffling to me why they would pick the village idiot.

 

So...going forward, the question is, how does the party pick up the pieces after he gets demolished in November and move forward. Somehow those voters need to rethink whatever is going through their minds.....OR......different voters need to be in those early primaries.

 

If neither of those happen...RIP Republican Party.

[Whistlebritches]

The Democrats did not nominate somebody nobody wanted. Hillary is a big name with a wide support base; she lost a close primary the last time the Democrats had a contested one. And while this time around it was closer than you might expect, she didn't win the nomination because nobody wanted her.

 

Let's move past that storyline.

 

Trump didn't win because nobody wanted him, either.

 

The only difference is the comparative power of the establishment. The voter base that Trump marshaled was strong enough to win, even though they had not been heard like this before; the voter base that Hillary reached likewise was strong enough, and more or less resembles every recent Democratic primary result.

I feel like Hillary won because nobody want to run against he because there were only two names on my primary ballot. I honestly think Biden would have crushed her in the primary if Debbie Wasserman didn't interfere. But he didn't even run.

[Danny Bateman]

Biden didn't want to run, though. As an analog to him in the GOP, Paul Ryan could've possibly mopped the floor with that GOP field had he run. Although he doesn't have near the experience or executive experience that Biden does, he's still the most influential non-Trump face of the GOP. He's the most powerful Republican in the legislative branch, right?

But neither of them wanted to run. Biden has given plenty of years of service to his country and wants to spend time with his family after the passing of his son. Ryan didn't want to for whatever reason-- to pad the resume for 2020 most likely. Maybe he genuinely doesn't want the job. Either way, we don't always attract the best available candidates for various reasons

But these are the candidates the system spit out. I'm with Zoogs in that Clinton is decidedly not a no-one-wants-her type candidate. Putting all the "she-got-a-close-race-from-a-socialist" sensationalism aside, she beat Bernie by a very comfortable margin. It's just that after that point, you had a lot of disillusioned Sanders supporters, to go along with an opposing party that has pretty much been indoctrinated to believe she's literally Satan. So, there's a hefty chunk of the country that doesn't like you right there, but it doesn't mean she doesn't have a sizeable coalition.

Same with Trump, though the bipartisan distaste for him exceeds the same for Clinton.

So, ideas how to wind up with different candidates:

• Primaries: Closed vs. Open
• Superdelegates: Yay or Nay
• Scrapping the FPTP voting system altogether in favor of a ranked choice system
• Trying to do away with the duopoly of D vs. R in favor of a European style mutli-party system
• Stronger incentives to run for president (higher salary?)

The last two in particular are very third-party friendly. To add to #4, to piggyback on what Randy said about the GOP getting their ducks in a row, say we did break into more than two main parties. You could have the far left (Communists/Socialists), center-left (Democrats), centrists (Bloomberg types), center-right (establishment, business minded Republicans) and far-right (nationalists, protectionists, anti-immigration party).

It'd be interesting to see how the split winds up between center-right and far-right. I'd be tempted to boot Trump and his supporters to the far-right of the spectrum and try to ignore them. But what happens if the center-right GOP runs Paul Ryan in 2020 and Trump self-funds an independent far-right bid? He could essentially take down Ryan's campaign out of spite, since he would usurp too much of the far-right vote Ryan would need.

 

Lots to drink in there. Sorry for the length. Feel free to add to that list! ^^^

[Danny Bateman]

 

Question: How much do we think Trump's celebrity status has to do with his success and relative insulation from various gaffes? I think it has a lot to do with a lot of it.

I think it's definitely a part. He was a household name before this election. If he was an unknown who just randomly burst on the scene and said the ridiculous things that he has, he probably wouldn't get away with it. Howard Dean let out a visceral scream of excitement and it ended his campaign. Trump said he'd date his own daughter if he could and he's the new GOP standard bearer.

 

 

Very much agree with you.

 

People are trying to say this Twitter-heavy, tons of TV coverage, light on spending/traditional campaigning style that he uses is some kind of new normal that everyone is going to use going forward.

 

The problem is, imagine someone like Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan trying to pull that off. I don't think Trump's brand of campaign would work for a traditional politician who doesn't already have lots of fame and brand recognition built in.

[HuskerNation1]

The way this election is rolling, it could come down to who has the last cycle of negative news. Prior to the debate, Trump was making positive news while Hillary was on the defensive, and you began to see Trump take the lead in national polls and many swing states. Since the debate, Trump has probably had his worst week of the whole campaign with the media following Hillary's lead on the Beauty pageant story, and now the NY Times speculating about Trump's taxes. Surprisingly, Hillary's national lead is still within the margin of error. It seems she has gotten the biggest bump in Florida which is key for both candidates.

 

Assuming Pence does well tomorrow as I would expect, and with the wikileaks coming out, it could be another small stretch of time for bad news for Hillary until their 2nd debate. I think the 2nd debate may be most crucial as if Trump does poorly again, he may not have another chance. Meanwhile if he does better than expected, those that moved to Hillary after the first debate may move back to undecided or to Trump.

[zoogs]

I feel like Hillary won because nobody want to run against he because there were only two names on my primary ballot. I honestly think Biden would have crushed her in the primary if Debbie Wasserman didn't interfere. But he didn't even run.

 

As someone who may have gone for Biden, I think the effect it mainly would have had is keeping Sanders on the flanks. I don't know who would have won between those two, but it would have been a solid race -- and both would have been strong contenders.

 

Which is a contrast to Trump materializing out of nowhere.

 

 

However, I'm a firm believer that if you back up 16-20 years ago, Trump would have been laughed off the stage as the biggest joke in the Republican party as a candidate. This year, he wins. What has changed???

 

I'm not sure I can answer this with any sort of authority. My general feeling, to echo the political observers I've read and agreed with over this cycle, is that something like this was long in the offing. This was the coalition that the GOP assembled. The influence from the noxious side isn't recent, either; just the open fissure.

 

Trump like candidates have done well early in recent Republican primaries only to fade -- which is what we assumed would happen again, only this time it didn't.

 

The rising stars with the shiny names were all sort of these new wave, Tea Party types -- Cruz, Rubio, Jindal. Nonpoliticians like Fiorina, Carson, Trump. Bachmann and Cain were once forerunners in 2012, and in 2008 millions voted for a ticket that featured Sarah Palin as VP. As much as Jeb and Kasich may have personally been lackluster, I think you can make a strong case that their (your) segment of the party had already been well knocked off the top perch.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Well, if anything, I think a useful conversation can come out of this about reforms to the primary process or the voting process overall.

 

He's going to keep the bad press going with this Foundation cease and desist storyline as well.

 

Question: How much do we think Trump's celebrity status has to do with his success and relative insulation from various gaffes? I think it has a lot to do with a lot of it.

The conversation that will be had will be within the Republican Party as they try to figure out how to keep out the outsiders like Trump. Even if they regain control of their party you need not look any further than the Democrats to see how well this control would treat the American people. That party did have its sh#t together and still nominated a candidate that no one wanted. Only way anything changes is if voters get away from these institutions.

 

You hit on it right there.

 

The inner management of the party didn't want anything to do with Trump. They didn't go as far as the Dems and rig it against him (at least and be successful with it). The people who need to take the blame for this are the voters in the early to middle states in the primaries. THEY are the mindless voters that thought he was so awesome and gave him the momentum to go through and ultimately win the nomination.

 

I still have absolutely no idea what these people thought they were voting for. In some ways, it's sad that they were duped so badly by a fraud.

 

To change things, maybe the Republicans need to completely change how they do their primaries so it doesn't give just a few early states so much power.

 

Didn't many of those early states that voted for Trump allow for independents and dems to vote in the primary? I think so. A nice covert action by the dems would be to have voters vote for the least desirable (in GE terms) repub candidate. Thus Trump. Not saying there was an organized effort but I do believe Cruz was complaining that the early primaries had open voting and that 'true' repubs did not choose Trump in the early voting.

 

I can see the merits of an open primary in that you should get a candidate who appeals to more than the base, but personally I think the primaries should be just for the registered voters of that party - to get a true representative of the party. If that were to have occurred, Trump may have been a non-factor when states more favorable to Rubio and Cruz came on line.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Well, if anything, I think a useful conversation can come out of this about reforms to the primary process or the voting process overall.

 

He's going to keep the bad press going with this Foundation cease and desist storyline as well.

 

Question: How much do we think Trump's celebrity status has to do with his success and relative insulation from various gaffes? I think it has a lot to do with a lot of it.

The conversation that will be had will be within the Republican Party as they try to figure out how to keep out the outsiders like Trump. Even if they regain control of their party you need not look any further than the Democrats to see how well this control would treat the American people. That party did have its sh#t together and still nominated a candidate that no one wanted. Only way anything changes is if voters get away from these institutions.

 

You hit on it right there.

 

The inner management of the party didn't want anything to do with Trump. They didn't go as far as the Dems and rig it against him (at least and be successful with it). The people who need to take the blame for this are the voters in the early to middle states in the primaries. THEY are the mindless voters that thought he was so awesome and gave him the momentum to go through and ultimately win the nomination.

 

I still have absolutely no idea what these people thought they were voting for. In some ways, it's sad that they were duped so badly by a fraud.

 

To change things, maybe the Republicans need to completely change how they do their primaries so it doesn't give just a few early states so much power.

 

Didn't many of those early states that voted for Trump allow for independents and dems to vote in the primary? I think so. A nice covert action by the dems would be to have voters vote for the least desirable (in GE terms) repub candidate. Thus Trump. Not saying there was an organized effort but I do believe Cruz was complaining that the early primaries had open voting and that 'true' repubs did not choose Trump in the early voting.

 

I can see the merits of an open primary in that you should get a candidate who appeals to more than the base, but personally I think the primaries should be just for the registered voters of that party - to get a true representative of the party. If that were to have occurred, Trump may have been a non-factor when states more favorable to Rubio and Cruz came on line.

 

That's possible. I'm sure there were some Dems that switched to screw with the results. However, I have a hard time believing that enough did that to make a difference.

 

I think the bigger factor was that there were 18 candidates at that point in time. Trump was able to rustle up enough clueless voters with his blabbering idiot bravado that he was able to squeak by and win enough of those early ones that he got the momentum.

 

Now, maybe these two factors together gave us the perfect storm to have what we have now.

[TGHusker]

Biden didn't want to run, though. As an analog to him in the GOP, Paul Ryan could've possibly mopped the floor with that GOP field had he run. Although he doesn't have near the experience or executive experience that Biden does, he's still the most influential non-Trump face of the GOP. He's the most powerful Republican in the legislative branch, right?

 

But neither of them wanted to run. Biden has given plenty of years of service to his country and wants to spend time with his family after the passing of his son. Ryan didn't want to for whatever reason-- to pad the resume for 2020 most likely. Maybe he genuinely doesn't want the job. Either way, we don't always attract the best available candidates for various reasons

 

But these are the candidates the system spit out. I'm with Zoogs in that Clinton is decidedly not a no-one-wants-her type candidate. Putting all the "she-got-a-close-race-from-a-socialist" sensationalism aside, she beat Bernie by a very comfortable margin. It's just that after that point, you had a lot of disillusioned Sanders supporters, to go along with an opposing party that has pretty much been indoctrinated to believe she's literally Satan. So, there's a hefty chunk of the country that doesn't like you right there, but it doesn't mean she doesn't have a sizeable coalition.

 

Same with Trump, though the bipartisan distaste for him exceeds the same for Clinton.

 

So, ideas how to wind up with different candidates:

 

• Primaries: Closed vs. Open
• Superdelegates: Yay or Nay
• Scrapping the FPTP voting system altogether in favor of a ranked choice system
• Trying to do away with the duopoly of D vs. R in favor of a European style mutli-party system
• Stronger incentives to run for president (higher salary?)

The last two in particular are very third-party friendly. To add to #4, to piggyback on what Randy said about the GOP getting their ducks in a row, say we did break into more than two main parties. You could have the far left (Communists/Socialists), center-left (Democrats), centrists (Bloomberg types), center-right (establishment, business minded Republicans) and far-right (nationalists, protectionists, anti-immigration party).

 

It'd be interesting to see how the split winds up between center-right and far-right. I'd be tempted to boot Trump and his supporters to the far-right of the spectrum and try to ignore them. But what happens if the center-right GOP runs Paul Ryan in 2020 and Trump self-funds an independent far-right bid? He could essentially take down Ryan's campaign out of spite, since he would usurp too much of the far-right vote Ryan would need.

 

Lots to drink in there. Sorry for the length. Feel free to add to that list! ^^^

Good post Dude. I agree changes have got to be made. I'm all in favor of a multi party system. I've mentioned it several times.

I'd revise your list wt:

Communist/Socialist (can't believe that would even be considered in the USA)

Center Left

Centralist/Establishment

Constitution Party

Nationalist Party

 

Closed party primaries

No super delegates

 

Higher salary for President - hardest job in America - maybe it will draw more quality candidates

 

I'd also get the money out of the system. Limit spending to $???? - would do 2 things - Tell us how good of a mgr the candidate is wt the limited resources, and level the influence back to the voter and away from

special interests. No super pacs, no union dues, NEA, NRA etc money.

 

 

Dude: please explain this one - not sure what you meant by FPTP??

 

Scrapping the FPTP voting system altogether in favor of a ranked choice system

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

 

Well, if anything, I think a useful conversation can come out of this about reforms to the primary process or the voting process overall.

 

He's going to keep the bad press going with this Foundation cease and desist storyline as well.

 

Question: How much do we think Trump's celebrity status has to do with his success and relative insulation from various gaffes? I think it has a lot to do with a lot of it.

The conversation that will be had will be within the Republican Party as they try to figure out how to keep out the outsiders like Trump. Even if they regain control of their party you need not look any further than the Democrats to see how well this control would treat the American people. That party did have its sh#t together and still nominated a candidate that no one wanted. Only way anything changes is if voters get away from these institutions.

 

You hit on it right there.

 

The inner management of the party didn't want anything to do with Trump. They didn't go as far as the Dems and rig it against him (at least and be successful with it). The people who need to take the blame for this are the voters in the early to middle states in the primaries. THEY are the mindless voters that thought he was so awesome and gave him the momentum to go through and ultimately win the nomination.

 

I still have absolutely no idea what these people thought they were voting for. In some ways, it's sad that they were duped so badly by a fraud.

 

To change things, maybe the Republicans need to completely change how they do their primaries so it doesn't give just a few early states so much power.

 

Didn't many of those early states that voted for Trump allow for independents and dems to vote in the primary? I think so. A nice covert action by the dems would be to have voters vote for the least desirable (in GE terms) repub candidate. Thus Trump. Not saying there was an organized effort but I do believe Cruz was complaining that the early primaries had open voting and that 'true' repubs did not choose Trump in the early voting.

 

I can see the merits of an open primary in that you should get a candidate who appeals to more than the base, but personally I think the primaries should be just for the registered voters of that party - to get a true representative of the party. If that were to have occurred, Trump may have been a non-factor when states more favorable to Rubio and Cruz came on line.

 

That's possible. I'm sure there were some Dems that switched to screw with the results. However, I have a hard time believing that enough did that to make a difference.

 

I think the bigger factor was that there were 18 candidates at that point in time. Trump was able to rustle up enough clueless voters with his blabbering idiot bravado that he was able to squeak by and win enough of those early ones that he got the momentum.

 

Now, maybe these two factors together gave us the perfect storm to have what we have now.

 

I agree wt that. The dilution of the vote by the shear # of candidates probably gave room for the loudest voice in the room. Maybe there needs to be some deeper qualification of candidates to limit the list. I think the Huckabees of the world just get in so they can generate book revenue. Say way wt Carson - although he had a lot of early support - it seems that book sales was a big issue wt him.

[NM11046]

 

http://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/298761-what-will-be-octobers-surprise

 

In this wild election year, who knows what could be in the mix.

 

The uncontrollable - terror attack, release of 'secret info' by a third party-( Hillary's email, Trump's taxes), sudden economic issues, a Trump or Hillary health crisis

The Controllable - one of the candidates finds a new scoop on the other and capitalizes on it.

 

At this point, I think Trump needs a big surprise to be able to win. Hillary just needs to hold her cards close to the chest to pull this off and try not to cough during the next

2 debates.

 

Of course if you can answer the question, there wouldn't be a surprise . If there is one, what is your guess on what that surprise might be

 

 

If there is a surprise that could turn the election, I think it would have to be Hillary's health - Even if something came out that was devastating about her health, people may vote for her just so they can have VP Kane as the potential replacement vs having Trump in the WH.

 

I think most people are settled on Trump in their minds- nothing he can do limit his negatives or impress people wt something positive. He blew it big time last week - in the debate and everything that followed. He was not a 'Winner' in his ability to do something positive.

So its not this?

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/10/02/wednesday-hillary-clinton-done-reports-julian-assanges-announcement-tuesday-will-finish-396507

 

Looks like it was a publicity stunt to celebrate their 10th anniversary.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/10/04/trump-backers-feel-played-as-wikileaks-fails-to-come-through-on-october-surprise/

[BigRedBuster]

 

I'd also get the money out of the system. Limit spending to $???? - would do 2 things - Tell us how good of a mgr the candidate is wt the limited resources, and level the influence back to the voter and away from

special interests. No super pacs, no union dues, NEA, NRA etc money.

 

In theory, this is great. In reality, it's almost impossible to do.

 

That's because there are so many other groups/people who spend money to get someone elected. Let's say this system is in place and Trump can only spend XXX amount on his campaign. Well....then, let's say I am absolutely in LOVE with the idea of Trump as President and I want to help him so I go out and spend my own money on campaign ads.

 

How is that regulated and stopped?

 

If it's not stopped, then it opens up the fact that big donors only have to not donate to the candidate but run their own ads.

[TGHusker]

 

 

I'd also get the money out of the system. Limit spending to $???? - would do 2 things - Tell us how good of a mgr the candidate is wt the limited resources, and level the influence back to the voter and away from

special interests. No super pacs, no union dues, NEA, NRA etc money.

 

In theory, this is great. In reality, it's almost impossible to do.

 

That's because there are so many other groups/people who spend money to get someone elected. Let's say this system is in place and Trump can only spend XXX amount on his campaign. Well....then, let's say I am absolutely in LOVE with the idea of Trump as President and I want to help him so I go out and spend my own money on campaign ads.

 

How is that regulated and stopped?

 

If it's not stopped, then it opens up the fact that big donors only have to not donate to the candidate but run their own ads.

 

BRB can I quote the bold - out of context!!

 

Yes, then we end up wt free speech issues. Unless all spending is accounted for and has to go through the govt mandated "Candidate Routine Accounting Practices" or CRAP system - not to be confused wt GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices).

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

I'd also get the money out of the system. Limit spending to $???? - would do 2 things - Tell us how good of a mgr the candidate is wt the limited resources, and level the influence back to the voter and away from

special interests. No super pacs, no union dues, NEA, NRA etc money.

 

In theory, this is great. In reality, it's almost impossible to do.

 

That's because there are so many other groups/people who spend money to get someone elected. Let's say this system is in place and Trump can only spend XXX amount on his campaign. Well....then, let's say I am absolutely in LOVE with the idea of Trump as President and I want to help him so I go out and spend my own money on campaign ads.

 

How is that regulated and stopped?

 

If it's not stopped, then it opens up the fact that big donors only have to not donate to the candidate but run their own ads.

 

BRB can I quote the bold - out of context!!

 

Yes, then we end up wt free speech issues. Unless all spending is accounted for and has to go through the govt mandated "Candidate Routine Accounting Practices" or CRAP system - not to be confused wt GAAP (generally accepted accounting practices).

 

Thanks for so quickly making me wish I hadn't used him as the example.

 

I actually thought hard about who to use but remembered that there are actually people who think I support Hillary....so, I couldn't use her....I didn't feel like furthering that myth. So, I went with the most repugnant idiot I could think of.

[TGHusker]

Yes, it is bad when we got two bad choices.