Re: The American Presidential Election thread 2012 aka PMSL at Seppos

[Allan D]

Ironically it's because the candidates have to first contest with other people within their parties to get the ticket. And in those elections only the 'passionate', 'committed' people turn up (read mostly idiots, bigots, loonies). Stands to reason - not many people I know actually bother to vote for electing a candidate who will then stand for elections...so to speak.

With the result that the reasonable candidates on both sides can get winnowed out early. Unless they start to move closer to 'the crazy' as you put it.

There is some truth to that but at the same time the primary system winnowed out extreme candidates such as Howard Dean in 2004 and Ron Paul in 2008. More Presidential primaries are becoming "open" primaries where voters of both parties and none can vote.

The reason for the increasing ideological division between the two major parties along European lines (which did not exist in the past when the Democrats were divided between Northern liberals and Southern segregationists and the Republicans had a Rockefeller liberal wing) is the change in campaign financing and the increasing cost of elections forcing candidates to seek funds from their party machines and most committed supporters.

[furriner]

Allan, I should have made more clear - this is a discussion on the Presidential candidate, but I was speaking about the Senate and the Congress where it seems harder to winnow out the loons.

[Allan D]

Curiously in a country that celebrates capitalism and the free market as much as the US businessmen have not done particularly well in the political sphere, especially at Presidential level. Herbert Hoover who worked his way out of dire poverty to make a fortune as a mining engineer and was very successful as Commerce Secretary during the boom years of the 1920s proved hapless as President in the wake of the Wall Street Crash in 1929 and the ensuing economic depression.

On the other hand Harry Truman, whose venture into the retail business failed in that depression and who was declared bankrupt, proved to be, in the opinion of most commentators, a notable and successful President bringing an end to WWII, reviving Western Europe with the Marshall Plan, successfully challenging the Soviet blockade of Berlin and setting up NATO.

The last businessman to run a successful insurgent campaign along the lines of Trump was probably Wendell Willkie who won the Republican nomination in 1940 defeating the favourite, Robert "Mr Republican" Taft (who was to lose again to Eisenhower in 1952) despite previously having supported Roosevelt. However he went down to defeat by FDR in the general election.

Trump has mainly made his money from refurbishing buildings and selling them on. If success in business is to be a qualification for the White House then Mitt Romney, who has made an even larger fortune than Trump from turning around failing businesses, mainly in the manufacturing sector, and who turned around the 2002 Winter Olympics from a potential financial disaster into a considerable economic success, must surely rank as a worthier candidate

[Allan D]

Allan, I should have made more clear - this is a discussion on the Presidential candidate, but I was speaking about the Senate and the Congress where it seems harder to winnow out the loons.

Only if they are guaranteed election in the subsequent general election because of their party label. In a marginal district or swing-state the chances of a "loony" candidate being returned in the eventual election (in which all voters, not just those who have registered their party preference) is reduced rather than increased I would have thought and this was borne out by several results in the 2008 elections where several Democrats, such as Harry Reid in Nevada, held onto their seats against the trend because of the unsuitability of their opponents.

Another example of this is Joe Lieberman, who had been Gore's running-mate in 2000 (and who many believe, including McCain's daughter, should have been John 's running-mate in 2008 rather than Palin, despite the difference in party affiliation), who narrowly lost the Democratic primary for the US Senate seat in Connecticut in 2006 because of his support for the war in Iraq, mainly thanks to his wealthy opponent bussing in out-of-state students who qualified to vote by virtue of their college residency.

Lieberman was generally seen, even by those who disagreed with him, as a man of honesty and integrity who had worked hard for his state and so when he stood as an independent in the general election that year not only did more than half of the Democratic voters (most of whom had not voted in the previous primary) support him but the Republican vote collapsed in his favour too allowing him to be re-elected comfortably:

United States Senate Election in Connecticut 2006

The real reason for the greater success rate of "loony" candidates in primary elections is the differential turnout between primary elections where candidates of only one party are on offer and general elections where there are candidates of all parties and the large number of seats that do not change hands between the political parties.

In a swing seat a primary voter would have to balance his ideological preferences against the electability of the candidates on offer in the subsequent election. The selection of candidates by fee-paying activists behind closed doors as well as the similar number of "safe" seats has not prevented a similar number of "loony" candidates, in all parties, presenting themselves for election here, often successfully.

Before we sneer at the Seppos we should also note note that opinion polls in France are currently showing that Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, would top the poll in next year's (held in May) Presidential election. This would guarantee her a place in the final round of voting (which is between the top 2 candidates in the first round of voting). Despite what Alan "Postman Pat" Johnson may say, she may very well pick up votes from Socialist voters in a bid to defeat Sarkozy if their candidate is excluded as well as Sarkozy supporters if he were excluded so the chances of the National Front providing the next President of France is by no means insignificant. Mlle Le Pen makes Sarah Palin look like Julia Gillard.

[Gary 111]

If the Republican Party nominated Sarah Palin it would be a masterstroke. Obama would have no chance of getting elected with her running on the ticket.

[Allan D]

If the Republican Party nominated Sarah Palin it would be a masterstroke. Obama would have no chance of getting elected with her running on the ticket.

????? - Is this intended as a NSR trap?

[Bradman]

Obama's opponent at the last President election, John McCain, was born in a military hospital in Panama in 1936 and George Romney, the father of Obama's likely opponent in 2012, who was a candidate for the Republican nomination in 1968, was born to American parents in the Mormon colonies in Mexico in 1907 but neither's eligibility to be candidates for the US Presidency was ever questioned to my knowledge.

Actually Romney, Obama and McCain are just a few in a long line of potential presidents to have their status questioned. McCain even refused to produce a birth certificate in 2000.

Of the others Chester Arthur and Goldwater were the most prominent. Arthur suffering from claims he was born in Jamaica or some such place and Goldwater because he was born in some state that wasn't a state at the time of his birth.

I don't believe their Supreme Court has ever ruled one way or another on the term "natural born". (with any degree of finality anyway)

[Allan D]

Goldwater because he was born in some state that wasn't a state at the time of his birth

I presume you mean Arizona, which Goldwater represented in the US Senate for 30 years which was then Arizona Territory when he was born in Phoenix in January 1909, 3 years before it attained statehood, the last of the mainland 48 to do so. On that basis 8 out of the first 9 US Presidents were ineligible to run for office as they were natural-born British citizens since the United States did not exist at the time of their birth.

[Bradman]

Goldwater because he was born in some state that wasn't a state at the time of his birth

I presume you mean Arizona, which Goldwater represented in the US Senate for 30 years which was then Arizona Territory when he was born in Phoenix in January 1909, 3 years before it attained statehood, the last of the mainland 48 to do so. On that basis 8 out of the first 9 US Presidents were ineligible to run for office as they were natural-born British citizens since the United States did not exist at the time of their birth.

No the constitution grandfathered them in in the original clause. Much like the Truman clause in the 22nd ammendment.

[Allan D]

I stand corrected.

McCain, like Goldwater, was born in a territory (Panama Canal Zone) not a state but I presume this makes little difference to eligibility since that would also disqualify those born in the national capital, Washington D.C., where the inhabitants were ineligible to cast a ballot in Presidential elections until 1964. However as you say the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on the issue and, imo, is unlikely to do so except in the most extreme case.

[Bradman]

Actually the biggest problem with McCain is which hospital he was born in (believe it or not). His eligibility could've been dependant on whether he was born on the base or in a civilian hospital outside. (Go figure)

Sooner or later there's going to be a case of a kid born outside the US to two US parents, serving outside the US at the behest of the US (diplomat, miltary etc), then they're going to have to rule. The rest were more or less nuisance cases though some did rewrite history. Dredd-Scott for one in a big way.

But until then courts aren't allowed to even consider hypotheticals. I'm assuming that rule applies to the US as well as British common law countries.

[taipan]

Actually the biggest problem with McCain is which hospital he was born in (believe it or not). His eligibility could've been dependant on whether he was born on the base or in a civilian hospital outside. (Go figure)

Sooner or later there's going to be a case of a kid born outside the US to two US parents, serving outside the US at the behest of the US (diplomat, miltary etc), then they're going to have to rule. The rest were more or less nuisance cases though some did rewrite history. Dredd-Scott for one in a big way.

But until then courts aren't allowed to even consider hypotheticals. I'm assuming that rule applies to the US as well as British common law countries.

And you get the reverse case that a person born in the US to two non-US parents, is presumably eligble.

[Bradman]

Actually the biggest problem with McCain is which hospital he was born in (believe it or not). His eligibility could've been dependant on whether he was born on the base or in a civilian hospital outside. (Go figure)

Sooner or later there's going to be a case of a kid born outside the US to two US parents, serving outside the US at the behest of the US (diplomat, miltary etc), then they're going to have to rule. The rest were more or less nuisance cases though some did rewrite history. Dredd-Scott for one in a big way.

But until then courts aren't allowed to even consider hypotheticals. I'm assuming that rule applies to the US as well as British common law countries.

And you get the reverse case that a person born in the US to two non-US parents, is presumably eligble.

Yep. Wierd that as the idea was originally to preclude allegiance to a foreign power.

[Allan D]

Mitt Romney's dad was born outside the US to two US parents who were living there not at the behest of the US Government but because they found Mexico more tolerant of their religious faith than the US in the early years of the last century (they changed their minds following the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution in 1912 and returned to the US). Nevertheless George Romney still considered himself eligible for the Presidency in 1968.

Although he didn't win the Republican nomination he would have presumably saved his cash had he been given legal advice to the contrary at the start of the campaign. He was also reportedly under consideration by Nixon (the eventual winner) as a possible V-P pick and although he wasn't successful there either (Spiro Agnew, the son of a Greek immigrant father but a native Virginian mother was selected) Nixon's staff must have considered him eligible too since there was no point in picking a V-P who was ineligible to be President.

The only major party nominee, I think, to have been born to immigrant parents (who migrated to the US separately) in the US is Michael Dukakis who was the Democratic candidate in 1988.(when George Bush Snr. won).

[Allan D]

Trump: I'll Release My Tax Returns When Obama Releases His Birth Certificate

Scroll down for video.