2016 Election

Quote: Twirdman

I mean how often do you switch jobs that you always need to have a valid ID to have a job? Or how often do you need to open an account at a bank. These are things that for some people are only done once or twice in their life at which point ID becomes unnecessary. If their company relocates them they may never have an ID for the state they live in.

The average person changes jobs every 4.4 years, so this is often enough to need to maintain ID. The average person moves about once every five years, which means needing ID for either mortgage or in most cases getting a new lease. But it really doesn't matter much, maintaining an ID is simply part of being an adult.

Quote:

Again even if it is possible how is it not a poll tax.

Because a poll tax is a tax simply to vote. An ID is needed as part of being an adult, as I and other have proven over and over and over.

Quote:

In Florida to get my brothers it would have cost at least 80 dollars if we didn't have an expired passport. Now sure we could easily have afforded that, but plenty of others cannot. That is the equivalent of an entire weeks worth of food for a family.

21 days of food for $80? You do know that assumes they are spending just $2 per meal and skipping lunch. Do you seriously expect me to believe that?

Quote: Twirdman

I mean it can be difficult for those born outside this country to get ID. I pointed out the case of my brother and while it was able to be done it could have easily been significantly more difficult if not impossible. I mean you need a valid ID to get a birth certificate from the state department. California accepts a certificate of life birth but Florida needs an actual state department birth certificate. So theoretically someone could retire to Florida after having lived and worked in California and be unable to get a license or at least have a significantly more difficult time getting a license, but hey if you happen to be born in the US and have an easy to get birth certificate it might be easy and that is all that matters right.

Not if he had the now universally required passport for all travelers outside the U.S.

Quote: Twirdman

Also someone working may simply let their ID expire and if they transfer states might not want or be able to get a new one.

Why would anyone do that? Out of, say, shyness?

Quote: Twirdman

So actual statistics aren't evidence to you and anecdotes aren't evidence to you.

Let's see sources and cites and then we judge just what sort of "evidence" it is.

A senior citizen can live on a SS card, bank card and Medicaid card. SS can be direct deposit.

So no need of a id, if they don't drive. And that's generally not enough to vote is some states.

Nowadays you can withdraw money without ever going to a bank or showing an ID.

I haven't been to my actual bank in 15 years.

Quote: rxwine

A senior citizen can live on a SS card, bank card and Medicaid card.

First of all, I think you mean Medicare card. Second, practically all health care providers, especially in a state like Nevada, demand to see photo ID before providing goods or services, including pharmacies.

Quote: SanchoPanza

First of all, I think you mean Medicare card. Second, practically all health care providers, especially in a state like Nevada, demand to see photo ID before providing goods or services, including pharmacies.

As long as you are not picking up restricted drugs, you can pick up your neighbor's prescription without ID. Done it for my neighbor multiple times at the Publix pharmacy here. (florida) I just tell them her name.

Once you have a regular dr. they don't ask for your ID. I know that from my own experience.

Quote: rxwine

As long as you are not picking up restricted drugs, you can pick up your neighbor's prescription without ID. Done it for my neighbor multiple times at the Publix pharmacy here. (florida) I just tell them her name.

Once you have a regular dr. they don't ask for your ID. I know that from my own experience.

How is payment handled? How are controlled substances handled?

Quote: AZDuffman

The average person changes jobs every 4.4 years, so this is often enough to need to maintain ID. The average person moves about once every five years, which means needing ID for either mortgage or in most cases getting a new lease. But it really doesn't matter much, maintaining an ID is simply part of being an adult.



Because a poll tax is a tax simply to vote. An ID is needed as part of being an adult, as I and other have proven over and over and over.



21 days of food for $80? You do know that assumes they are spending just $2 per meal and skipping lunch. Do you seriously expect me to believe that?

You haven't proven at all you just keep stating it. If it was really required how do about 11% of the adult population get by without having an ID http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf from the same report 18% of 65+ year olds have no ID 25% of African Americans have none. So clearly it is not required no matter how many times you try to declare it to be.

Also about the $80 a day for food. Have you simply never been poor and cannot relate to what it is like to struggle for money or do you just not care? There are numerous sites on the internet dedicated to feeding your family for under 100 a week. Sure you cannot eat the best of food but you can survive and eat moderately healthy. Here is an example https://www.google.com/search?q=eat+less+then+100+a+week&oq=eat+less+then+100+a+week&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.33779j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=eat+less+than+100+a+week&spell=1 . Some of those spend money on things that are more expensive then is absolutely necessary like buying shrimp or flank steak. I've actually eaten for less then that by foregoing things like that and eating a lot of cheap stew meat and things. Besides even if it couldn't feed a family of 3, something it can do one of the links http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/recipes/dinner/eat-healthy-for-a-week-under-100/?page=1 feeds 4 actually, it doesn't change the fact 80 dollars is a significant amount of money.

Quote: Sancho

Not if he had the now universally required passport for all travelers outside the U.S.

Yes because a person born a US citizen who came to the US when he was under a year old and doesn't plan to return to the country is definitely going to keep his passport especially when the documents he had previously are known to work to get IDs in the state he was living in. I mean technically the state department recommends holding onto it, but that is not exactly always followed.

Quote: SanchoPanza

How is payment handled? How are controlled substances handled?

I don't know how controlled substances are handled. But not everyone needs them.

The thing is, under stable conditions one can go for quite awhile without needing voter worthy ID. You can have ongoing payments allotted into automatic payments on supplemental insurance.

Quote: rxwine

I don't know how controlled substances are handled. But not everyone needs them.

Well, in Nevada and New Jersey, as well as presumably other controlling states, photo ID is demanded for all prescription medications, even from spouses when the whole family is on file complete with detailed medication, insurance and payment data.

Quote: Twirdman

Yes because a person born a US citizen who came to the US when he was under a year old and doesn't plan to return to the country is definitely going to keep his passport especially when the documents he had previously are known to work to get IDs in the state he was living in. I mean technically the state department recommends holding onto it, but that is not exactly always followed.

A lot of government agencies, not to mention civilians, are dealing with the problems created by the new, haltingly instituted federal ID laws. People who were consularly registered are usually extra aware and attuned to their special status.

Quote: rxwine

I don't know how controlled substances are handled.

If you are handling them without specific authorization, it might be a good idea to look into the legal ramifications of what the Florida attorney general called the state's "deadliest public safety problem":

"Prescription drug abuse remains Florida’s fastest-growing and deadliest public safety issue. More than
seven Floridians die on average each day from prescription drug-related overdoses. Florida’s communities
suffer from prescription drug addiction due to increasing health care costs and a growing proportion of
prescription drug diversion fueled crime. Worst of all, doctors and nurses are reporting increases in the
number of infants suffering from Neonatal Withdrawal Syndrome due to their mother’s abuse of opioid painkillers.

If Florida’s prescription drug epidemic is not slowed, and then reversed, many more Floridians
will be lost to addiction, crime and overdose death.
Florida is the epicenter of prescription drug diversion because – until recently – our state had weak
regulatory oversight of pain management practices, limited oversight of physician dispensing habits, and no
statewide Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). Local gangs, drug abusers, and other criminal
enterprises exploited these glaring weaknesses in Florida’s regulatory system to build lucrative criminal
enterprises supplying Oxycodone and other diverted pharmaceuticals to markets throughout the country."

Quote: SanchoPanza

A lot of government agencies, not to mention civilians, are dealing with the problems created by the new, haltingly instituted federal ID laws. People who were consularly registered are usually extra aware and attuned to their special status.

I really think you aren't exactly sure what I'm talking about. I am not talking about an immigrant coming to this country as an adult or even an immigrant coming to this country as a child and getting a visa. I am talking about people born overseas to US parents perhaps on US military installations. Not everyone born over seas is born a non US citizen. For those born US citizens there is very little difference between them and those born in the US for what is required in most states to get an ID.

Quote: Twirdman

I really think you aren't exactly sure what I'm talking about. I am not talking about an immigrant coming to this country as an adult or even an immigrant coming to this country as a child and getting a visa. I am talking about people born overseas to US parents perhaps on US military installations. Not everyone born over seas is born a non US citizen.

Yes, we all know very well the loony and erroneous discussions about McCain, Romney and now Cruz. But thanks to the politically paralyzed State Department, Americans overseas have been pushed further down the priority list for visas, leaving millions at odds and ends:

"The waiting list for those trying to enter the U.S. legally now stands at 4.4 million, 100,000 more than last year. Some have been on the list for more than 15 years. Even though the spouses and children of U.S citizens are supposed to get priority, even their wait times have jumped from as little as two months to up 18 months as the administration deals with a surge of illegal immigrants given lawful status by president Obama.

“I’ve had people tell me, ‘Why don’t you just show up at the border and try to get across?'” said Gugliotta. “I say, ‘No, we want to do this thing right.'”

While the State Department handles the granting of visas for those overseas, their application first has to be processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The agency has been deluged by more than 2,000 applications a day for green cards and work permits after President Obama offered to shield some 4 million illegal immigrant children and adults from deportation using his executive authority."

Quote: SanchoPanza

Yes, we all know very well the loony and erroneous discussions about McCain, Romney and now Cruz. But thanks to the politically paralyzed State Department, Americans overseas have been pushed further down the priority list for visas, leaving millions at odds and ends:

"The waiting list for those trying to enter the U.S. legally now stands at 4.4 million, 100,000 more than last year. Some have been on the list for more than 15 years. Even though the spouses and children of U.S citizens are supposed to get priority, even their wait times have jumped from as little as two months to up 18 months as the administration deals with a surge of illegal immigrants given lawful status by president Obama.

“I’ve had people tell me, ‘Why don’t you just show up at the border and try to get across?'” said Gugliotta. “I say, ‘No, we want to do this thing right.'”

While the State Department handles the granting of visas for those overseas, their application first has to be processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The agency has been deluged by more than 2,000 applications a day for green cards and work permits after President Obama offered to shield some 4 million illegal immigrant children and adults from deportation using his executive authority."

Again you aren't talking at all about what I am talking about. Military families occasionally live overseas. Occasionally while overseas they have a child. That child needs a special state department birth certificate. That child does not need a visa that child is a US citizen and when the family returns to the US that child will go with them. There is no waiting list or anything stupid like that. Not everyone born overseas is a non citizen needing a visa.

Quote: Twirdman

Not everyone born overseas is a non citizen needing a visa.

Even the children of U.S. citizens overseas, who are in one of the three categories of citizens by birth, were specifically mentioned in the prior post.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Even the children of U.S. citizens overseas, who are in one of the three categories of citizens by birth, were specifically mentioned in the prior post.

Wrong. That article state nothing about who needed visa so I looked it up since I knew people born to US citizens do not need visas. He married a Chilean woman and is trying to get a visa for her and her daughter from a previous marriage. In his go fund me page there is no mention of needing a visa for what I presume is his 3 year old son http://www.gofundme.com/pcawys. This is because all he needs to do for the son is apply for either a passport or a consular report of birth abroad. Citizens can attempt to get citizenship for their spouse or children they had before they became citizen or children that they choose to adopt these are not automatic, I know since my uncle had to apply to get his spouse and non adult children here, but children born after you become a citizen are automatically granted and you do not need to apply for a visa.

I mean do you really think that they would station a family overseas in the military and then tell them sorry we are shipping you back to the US but you cannot bring your children because you have to get visas. Does that really make any sense to you? Also how would a US citizen get a US visa anyways non of that makes any sense. Countries don't issue visas to citizens because they are freely allowed to enter the country. If they required visas a person could literally without committing any crimes be persona non grata in every country. I mean really is that how you think it works?

Quote: rxwine

Once you have a regular dr. they don't ask for your ID. I know that from my own experience.

Not correct. I have to show ID at my doctor every time I go there, as does every patient. Has to do with the privacy laws. Ditto for when I pick up my meds. Has to do with HIPA.

Of course this is no big deal since any responsible adult has an ID already. I haven't heard anyone crying that it is a "doctor tax" or some other nonsense. They already had the ID to drive there, get the job that had their health insurance, open the bank account for the co-pay........

Quote: Twirdman

You haven't proven at all you just keep stating it. If it was really required how do about 11% of the adult population get by without having an ID http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf from the same report 18% of 65+ year olds have no ID 25% of African Americans have none. So clearly it is not required no matter how many times you try to declare it to be.

I am not going to buy a report that says 25% of blacks don't drive AND have never worked a legit job AND haven't cashed a check AND haven't gone to a modern doctor's office AND have never done any of the dozens of other things needed to function in life. It does not past the smell test. Even if it was the case, they can continue to function without one if they like, they just don't get to vote. Nobody ever died because they did not vote, so seems a simple solution.

Quote:

Also about the $80 a day for food. Have you simply never been poor and cannot relate to what it is like to struggle for money or do you just not care? There are numerous sites on the internet dedicated to feeding your family for under 100 a week.

*yawn* Yes, I have been broke in college and had to eat cheap, but guess what-- I STILL HAD A VALID STATE ISSUED ID! Because without one I would not be able to fill out form I-9 and get a job to improve my situation.

The "red herring" here is the whole "poll tax" argument and the "how hard it is to get an ID argument" because, in reality, clearing those hurdles will only make that side of the argument come up with another reason why Voter ID should not be done. I've already said we should have exceptions for the elderly and that we should make getting IDs easy and free to those who don't have a lot of money. I don't intend to disenfranchise anyone.

Since no one opposed to Voter ID (I am not speaking of ones willing to compromise; compromise is a part of the process) will present any way to make it work, they are showing an unwillingness to compromise that renders their arguments as "red herrings". They say it is illegal as a "poll tax"...but, for it to be a "poll tax" (if you consider that a valid argument) you would need to charge for it; if you make IDs free to people who can't afford them, that possibility seems to go away. If you offer opportunities to get the ID for free, that part goes away.

Taken to extreme, these folks would make you think you will disenfranchise millions of voters. In reality, the only ones that may be disenfranchised are the ones who pay no attention to anything...and I would craft the law to try and include even them.

Just because some idiots on the far right said they want to keep some people from voting and some fellow idiots on the left said that they want to pay people to get on the bus and vote (well, as long as they vote the right way) doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards a good Voter ID law that works for all of us. The idiots on either side will always be out there.

Quote: RonC

Taken to extreme, these folks would make you think you will disenfranchise millions of voters. In reality, the only ones that may be disenfranchised are the ones who pay no attention to anything...and I would craft the law to try and include even them.

This begs a bigger question. Should we keep encouraging those who do not pay attention to things to vote? Why do we think voting is so important that everyone needs to show up when they in many cases they don't even know who is running or what they stand for?

Quote: AZDuffman

This begs a bigger question. Should we keep encouraging those who do not pay attention to things to vote? Why do we think voting is so important that everyone needs to show up when they in many cases they don't even know who is running or what they stand for?

That statement troubles me because it goes to setting a threshold for being able to vote. What limits would you set? How would you decide voter competence? Is there a test?

No. Every person who has the right to vote should be allowed to vote with proper registration and identification. Anything less is unacceptable.

The proper way to offset those who don't know what is going on is turnout of those who do. Often, people sit out elections because they just don't feel like taking the time to vote while the other side organizes efforts to get out the vote. Too many people not voting who could vote and that do know something about the issues is as big of a problem as too many people who don't have a clue voting.

Quote: RonC

That statement troubles me because it goes to setting a threshold for being able to vote. What limits would you set? How would you decide voter competence? Is there a test?

No. Every person who has the right to vote should be allowed to vote with proper registration and identification. Anything less is unacceptable.

The proper way to offset those who don't know what is going on is turnout of those who do. Often, people sit out elections because they just don't feel like taking the time to vote while the other side organizes efforts to get out the vote. Too many people not voting who could vote and that do know something about the issues is as big of a problem as too many people who don't have a clue voting.

You missed what I said. I said why do we keep "encouraging" uninformed people to vote? Sure, everyone is "allowed" and the standards for being "allowed" are simple. Register, show up, (in a clean election show ID), and vote. Registering is fairly simple, the only thing I would make easier would be to require forms be at the local post office. I would ban Motor Voter as it has shown to encourage fraud. I would ban same-day registration, if you forgot to register well too bad. I would ban "early voting" and keep the election to the one day it was meant to be.

I do not feel voting is supposed to be as simple as ordering something on line or getting take-out. If voting is important then logically it should be treated as such. The voter should be expected to put forth some personal effort. Registering ahead of time and bringing your ID seem logical. Requiring a person show up the first time they vote (i.e.: no absentee votes) to prevent fraud. I would similarly have a requirement you show once every four years to vote absentee. Again to reduce fraud.

What stops logical discussion is comments from the left saying "minorities this, minorities that........" as though "minorities" are incapable of doing the simple process for an election. They act as though "minorities" are children who can't do for themselves. If Obama got up and said, "well, we can't have voter ID because too many Irish people don't have ID" I would be, and I hate to use the word but I will, I would be completely offended. I would make it a point to show up with my ID and say, "yeah, our POTUS thinks I am too stupid to get an ID but here you go, I actually have one!"

Quote: AZDuffman

You missed what I said. I said why do we keep "encouraging" uninformed people to vote? Sure, everyone is "allowed" and the standards for being "allowed" are simple. Register, show up, (in a clean election show ID), and vote. Registering is fairly simple, the only thing I would make easier would be to require forms be at the local post office. I would ban Motor Voter as it has shown to encourage fraud. I would ban same-day registration, if you forgot to register well too bad. I would ban "early voting" and keep the election to the one day it was meant to be.

I do not feel voting is supposed to be as simple as ordering something on line or getting take-out. If voting is important then logically it should be treated as such. The voter should be expected to put forth some personal effort. Registering ahead of time and bringing your ID seem logical. Requiring a person show up the first time they vote (i.e.: no absentee votes) to prevent fraud. I would similarly have a requirement you show once every four years to vote absentee. Again to reduce fraud.

What stops logical discussion is comments from the left saying "minorities this, minorities that........" as though "minorities" are incapable of doing the simple process for an election. They act as though "minorities" are children who can't do for themselves. If Obama got up and said, "well, we can't have voter ID because too many Irish people don't have ID" I would be, and I hate to use the word but I will, I would be completely offended. I would make it a point to show up with my ID and say, "yeah, our POTUS thinks I am too stupid to get an ID but here you go, I actually have one!"

It is simple...any time you say that we should not "encourage" certain people to vote, you are tacitly saying it is okay to "discourage" certain people from voting. The poll taxes were meant to "discourage" certain people from voting.

I think that you may have some points about voters, but the idea has to be that we want everyone who has the right to vote and a proper ID to have the opportunity to vote. If you state anything different, you hurt your case because then people wonder how tyou will go about "not encouraging" people...

Quote: Twirdman

I knew people born to US citizens do not need visas.

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy answers the question:

"My family is in the family-sponsored preference category – is there anything the Legal Service Office or military can do to get them here sooner?

Unfortunately, there are no provisions under the Immigration and Naturalization Act that allow service members to bypass the quota system and gain expedited entry for their relatives."

Quote: RonC

It is simple...any time you say that we should not "encourage" certain people to vote, you are tacitly saying it is okay to "discourage" certain people from voting. The poll taxes were meant to "discourage" certain people from voting.

I think that you may have some points about voters, but the idea has to be that we want everyone who has the right to vote and a proper ID to have the opportunity to vote. If you state anything different, you hurt your case because then people wonder how tyou will go about "not encouraging" people...

There is a difference between "not encouraging" and "discouraging." "Discouraging" would be anything from a poll tax to allowing a Black Panther to stand at the door of a polling place looking menacing. "Not encouraging" is simply taking no positive action. For example, putting registration" in every post office but not running ads saying "its your duty to vote!"

Quote: AZDuffman

There is a difference between "not encouraging" and "discouraging." "Discouraging" would be anything from a poll tax to allowing a Black Panther to stand at the door of a polling place looking menacing. "Not encouraging" is simply taking no positive action. For example, putting registration" in every post office but not running ads saying "its your duty to vote!"

There may be a difference but I think it better to not even talk about anything that could be construed as discouraging legal voters. If we have always run ads saying that it is a duty to vote, we should continue. There should be no attempt to keep those ads from running.

Go after the end goal. Don't let the opposition distract. Make their opposition seem ludicrous. There will still be some who oppose Voter ID, but they'll have the bad side of the argument.

Quote: SanchoPanza

The Judge Advocate General of the Navy answers the question:

"My family is in the family-sponsored preference category – is there anything the Legal Service Office or military can do to get them here sooner?

Unfortunately, there are no provisions under the Immigration and Naturalization Act that allow service members to bypass the quota system and gain expedited entry for their relatives."

Oh my god you really don't know how immigration works. That law is specifically referring to one of two cases either people who were not citizens at the time of having citizenship or people who have step children. You do not need to apply for a visa as a citizen of the country you are going to. Getting a visa to come to the country you are a citizen of literally makes absolutely no sense it would be the equivalent of needing to ask to enter your own home. Also from what you linked you can see that they weren't talking about a citizens children born abroad considering they are talking about family-sponsored preference category not the immediate family category which includes children under the age of 21 and your spouse. Did the fact that the child they are talking about in that document being over the age of 21 not tip you off that they are probably not talking about a kid the parent had recently.

Both my brother and sister were born in the Philippines and were granted US citizenship immediately they never had to apply for a visa and my brother came to the US at the age of 9 months after my dad was reassigned no waiting period or anything stupid like that. They did need to get passports but that is it. Similarly I had a lot of friends growing up in a Navy town that were born abroad and none of them needed visas.

Delete double post

Rick Harrison of Pawn Stars is supporting Marco Rubio for President.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2015/05/29/pawn-stars-help-marco-rubio-celebrate-birthday/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fmost-popular+%28Internal+-+Most+Popular+Content%29

OMG, I had a physical kneejerk reaction just
now to this pic. Hill unleashed on a half filled
Texas auditorium. It terrified me. Poor Bill, he's
had to stare into those piggy little eyes up
close.. "You did WHAT with Jennifer Flowers??"

The fist thing is pretty aggressive pose for all politicians, but especially for women.

Quote: pacomartin

The fist thing is pretty aggressive pose for all politicians, but especially for women.

This turns me on, Hill frightened me..

Quote: EvenBob

This turns me on, Hill frightened me..

That's good. Carly seems to have a bigger problem than Hillary getting voters to like her. Never won an election.

Quote: rxwine

That's good. Carly seems to have a bigger problem than Hillary getting voters to like her. Never won an election.

Unlike Carly, Hillary only ran in a very safe state and as "Mrs Bill Clinton." Carly, like Sarah Palin, didn't make it in life because she let a husband sleep around on her in exchange for use of his name. Carly ran in a state where the GOP is in a huge minority.

I don't see Carly winning, but I do see her in the Walker Administration somewhere.

Would you accept candy from this goblin on
Halloween?

I do have a funny Hillary story. My freshman year of HS, my father got me out of school to go see the Cubs play the Mets at Wrigley for opening day. Hillary, being a native of the Chicago area, and being First Lady at the time, threw out the ceremonial first pitch of the game. As was tradition at Wrigley in those days, Harry Caray would sing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" during the 7th inning stretch. Hillary sang with him on this particular day. After the song, Harry planted a big sloppy wet kiss on the first lady, and she looked absolutely mortified. After a few seconds, she was like "Oh crap! I'm on TV" and collected herself and pecked him on the cheek. Here is a picture of the kiss

http://www.further.com/~dknuth/pics/cubs/hillary.jpg

As the republican field continues to grow, there is a scenario, that while I have not seen mentioned, I believe is a real possibility and that is that no one candidate wins enough delegates to win the nomination. I really believe you could have a situation where 3 or 4 candidates, go to the republican convention and then you would have those deal-making situations that we have not seen in some 50 years...certainly not in my lifetime.

Let me explain my thinking. The way it has always worked with a party with a number of candidates is that you have to do well in one of those first 2 or 3 small primaries/caucuses. You don't have to win, but you need a reasonable showing first or a decent second. The reason for this is because if you have poor showings in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (first 3), it then becomes very difficult to continue to raise money and after those first 3 small states, you have a large state in Florida and then a super Tuesday scenario, where like a dozen states vote. To be competitive, beyond the first 3 small states, you need money for TV commercials and if you have done poorly in the first 3, you can't raise the money to continue. So those first 3 small states, sort of provided the service of thinning out the field down to the top 2 for the real primary battles.

But now, after the citizens united decision in 2010, it's a different playing field. Now raising money from small donors isn't important any more. In this day and age, a candidate needs to latch onto his 'sugardaddy', one of a number of billionaires that can single handedly finance a campaign.

Now here's what we have so far: Scott Walker has the Koch brothers. Jeb Bush is the establishment candidate and has a ton of money behind him. Marco Rubio has 3 so far unnamed Florida billionaires backing him. Lindsey Graham will have the backing of Michael Bloomberg, unless Bloomberg decides to finance his own campaign. And candidates are still wooing Sheldon Adelson as he hasn't announced who he is backing, but it is likely to be Santorum or Huckabee.

So this election we could have 4,5,6 candidates that have the money to go on far past those first 3 small elections, past Super Tuesday and could keep dividing up delegates all the way to the GOP convention. I mean how far fetched is it that Bush wins some of the moderate republican electorates, like Pennsylvania, California, ect, while Walker does well in the Midwest. Someone like Huckabee or Graham could win some southern states. Maybe Rubio steals Florida away from Bush and what if Cruz does well in Texas and Paul wins Kentucky. Holy mackerel...let the deal making begin, especially among those anti Bush factions. Might be fun to watch. :)

Quote: kewlj

And candidates are still wooing Sheldon Adelson as he hasn't announced who he is backing, but it is likely to be Santorum or Huckabee.

I can understand why he had hopes for Romney, but can't see why'd he'd throw money away on these two.

Quote: rxwine

I can understand why he had hopes for Romney, but can't see why'd he'd throw money away on these two.

Well he is legitimately crazy, so ya never know...

Quote: kewlj

As the republican field continues to grow, there is a scenario, that while I have not seen mentioned, I believe is a real possibility and that is that no one candidate wins enough delegates to win the nomination. I really believe you could have a situation where 3 or 4 candidates, go to the republican convention and then you would have those deal-making situations that we have not seen in some 50 years...certainly not in my lifetime.

Let me explain my thinking. The way it has always worked with a party with a number of candidates is that you have to do well in one of those first 2 or 3 small primaries/caucuses. You don't have to win, but you need a reasonable showing first or a decent second. The reason for this is because if you have poor showings in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (first 3), it then becomes very difficult to continue to raise money and after those first 3 small states, you have a large state in Florida and then a super Tuesday scenario, where like a dozen states vote. To be competitive, beyond the first 3 small states, you need money for TV commercials and if you have done poorly in the first 3, you can't raise the money to continue. So those first 3 small states, sort of provided the service of thinning out the field down to the top 2 for the real primary battles.

But now, after the citizens united decision in 2010, it's a different playing field. Now raising money from small donors isn't important any more. In this day and age, a candidate needs to latch onto his 'sugardaddy', one of a number of billionaires that can single handedly finance a campaign.

Now here's what we have so far: Scott Walker has the Koch brothers. Jeb Bush is the establishment candidate and has a ton of money behind him. Marco Rubio has 3 so far unnamed Florida billionaires backing him. Lindsey Graham will have the backing of Michael Bloomberg, unless Bloomberg decides to finance his own campaign. And candidates are still wooing Sheldon Adelson as he hasn't announced who he is backing, but it is likely to be Santorum or Huckabee.

So this election we could have 4,5,6 candidates that have the money to go on far past those first 3 small elections, past Super Tuesday and could keep dividing up delegates all the way to the GOP convention. I mean how far fetched is it that Bush wins some of the moderate republican electorates, like Pennsylvania, California, ect, while Walker does well in the Midwest. Someone like Huckabee or Graham could win some southern states. Maybe Rubio steals Florida away from Bush and what if Cruz does well in Texas and Paul wins Kentucky. Holy mackerel...let the deal making begin, especially among those anti Bush factions. Might be fun to watch. :)

Excellent analysis Kewlj
I believe its a real possibility no front runner develops by the time we get to the convention.
Its a fascinating scenario.
A completely fractured republican convention.
The leader with only say 20% of the delegates. wow. Its real possible with say 15 or more candidates, each one with their own unique sugar daddy funding.
For the 1st time in my life , may watch a convention.
They are mostly a 1 week political party commercial to anoint the obvious party winner.
A fractured convention could really develop if the religious conservatives pull for an unelectable hard right candidate while the business wing of the party fights for a moderate that has a chance. Would the delegates in an era of internet communication accept a deal negotiated in a back room. Will there be trades and deals, you back out and give me your delegates and I'll give you secretary of state, Will delegates accept these types of deals.
I'll be getting out the popcorn :-)
I lean left but keeping my republican party membership so I can vote in the key republican Florida primary. Boy will I have a ton of choices :-)

I don't think that scenario kewlj is alluding to will unfold, although it is an intriguing possibility to think about. IMO, while there may be 15 candidates for the Republican nomination, there are maybe 3-4 what I would call serious contenders, and IMO it will be whittled down to what basically amounts to a head to head race after the first few primaries. All this talk about a fractured convention is a bit premature as of yet

The more I think about, I think Hilary will do very well in the Dem side.

Sanders I think is too fringe for most voters (many of the people who like candidates like him are not a member of a party, and hence can't vote in primaries).

And ISIS will probably be a major part of this election, and Hilary probably has better foreign policy credentials than most in her party (that are running). The mix of being socially liberal and strong may make her a very likely candidate. And, her being a female will help her far more than harm her (despite what the feminists claim). I think unless something unforeseen happens, this election (primary) will go to Hilary. Her chances of the general election, will vary greatly depending on who wins the GOP ticket.

The GOP side is much more up in the air. Though I think Bush or Paul are good bets, both of them are more socially liberal than many of their competitors, and they both appeal to minority communities far more than other Republican candidates, so they both may have a pretty solid vote base. And, both can give Hilary a run for her money on social issues and minority issues.

Quote: Gandler

The more I think about, I think Hilary will do very well in the Dem side.
.

Hill is a peach, her winning the nomination
is crucial to a repub win.

Yet another totally frightening pic of Hill.
This is the best one, cover her mouth and
just look at what's left. Is that truly terrifying
or what. And this is her on Thurs giving a
speech, this is her public face. Good grief.

Keep up the misogyny, it's key to a Dem win.

Quote: ams288

Keep up the misogyny, it's key to a Dem win.

Probably, because Hillary has no accomplishments to point to and her entire basis for her public life has been being Mrs. Bill Clinton. With her record, crying misogyny and racism is about all she can do.

Quote: ams288

Keep up the misogyny, it's key to a Dem win.

Remember that line after the attacks begin on Fiorina. At least she can drive, it seems, without getting 2 legit tickets in 18 years. How do those Democratic names stack up?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Remember that line after the attacks begin on Fiorina. At least she can drive, it seems, without getting 2 legit tickets in 18 years. How do those Democratic names stack up?

No one is going to attack Fiorina's looks because she doesn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of becoming President.

And attacks on her disastrous tenure at HP will be sufficient.

Quote: ams288

No one is going to attack Fiorina's looks because she doesn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of becoming President.

Maybe you are unaware of her poll numbers, but the true-to-form attacks all follow the party line:

"Who is Carly Fiorina? And where did she get the gall to criticize the leadership qualities of Hillary Clinton? Carly got her groove wholesale from the GOP and the Republican National Committee, which have chosen Carly to be their Trojan Horse in the battle against Hillary. . . . The basic fact is that Carly Fiorina is not qualified enough to be President of the United States, unless the standards of competency drop very precipitously, very soon. She has no experience in politics, apart from her failed bid for a spot in the Senate. Carly Fiorina is a tool." --Will Hillary Win

It is no surprise that "60 Minutes" reported that she was considered the most powerful woman in American business. Before taking over at HP, she directed the largest IPO in history. When she was CEO at HP, it skyrocketed to No. 3 in innovation. Some diehards probably don't like her attacks on a candidate who keeps confidential all the finances and communications (and then some) that she can. Any bets on when she just might release her post-2007 1040's? Harry Reid, I understand from friends in Searchlight, is taking the under.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Maybe you are unaware of her poll numbers, but the true-to-form attacks all follow the party line:

"Who is Carly Fiorina? And where did she get the gall to criticize the leadership qualities of Hillary Clinton? Carly got her groove wholesale from the GOP and the Republican National Committee, which have chosen Carly to be their Trojan Horse in the battle against Hillary. . . . The basic fact is that Carly Fiorina is not qualified enough to be President of the United States, unless the standards of competency drop very precipitously, very soon. She has no experience in politics, apart from her failed bid for a spot in the Senate. Carly Fiorina is a tool." --Will Hillary Win

It is no surprise that "60 Minutes" reported that she was considered the most powerful woman in American business. Before taking over at HP, she directed the largest IPO in history. When she was CEO at HP, it skyrocketed to No. 3 in innovation. Some diehards probably don't like her attacks on a candidate who keeps confidential all the finances and communications (and then some) that she can. Any bets on when she just might release her post-2007 1040's? Harry Reid, I understand from friends in Searchlight, is taking the under.

Carly Fiorina?
Are you kidding me. Absolutely no chance of becoming President.
Just fodder for the late night comics.
Right now most odds makers have her at about 66 to 1 which I think is kind

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner