Political signs at a business

[dr wogz]

Giant Meteor...

Hillary...

Trump...

At this point...

What difference...

Does it make...

To me, it's all a fashion show. Their policies will influence the context of the next possible 4 years.. But, regardless of who's in front (on TV, the ads, the posters, the..) all the real work is done behind the scenes, and usually by the lobby groups..

 

[Banzai88]

To me, it's all a fashion show. Their policies will influence the context of the next possible 4 years.. But, regardless of who's in front (on TV, the ads, the posters, the..) all the real work is done behind the scenes, and usually by the lobby groups..

Don't forget that the Supreme Court is likely to have 3-4 corpses soon, in addition to the seat already vacated. THAT'LL change the way we live our lives for the next 40-60 years.

 

[tmacklin]

I've found that instead of complaining to the business owner/s about their political/religious views or boycotting them, it's best to humor and praise them for their courage. Thank them for taking a stance based upon principle instead of profit and ask them for literature, bumper stickers, yard signs and BS symbols. Lay it on thick, even if you want to gag and tell them that you will send them tons of business from your like minded friends. Say stuff like "I hear that" and "Amen brother!" Tell 'em they've made a customer for life and finally request a hefty discount. Works every time!

 

[H_Rocket]

I have this one in my office...

 

[Steven]

I've been boycotting some businesses just because of mixing religion/politics into their store. No thanks.

 

[mkadams001]

The signs do in influence my doing business with someone. If I were to only do business with those who I agree with politically I would lose 50% of possible business relationships. I am more interested in their service/products than their political beliefs.

 

[mkadams001]

People think I'm crazy, but I feel we need to drastically INCREASE the pay for congress and the presidency. All the talk is about stripping benefits and pay. Thats not the way to promote better applicants for a job.

If we want qualified candidates, free from owing anyone anything, we need to pay a level to attract them. It's obvious we're not providing enough incentive.

I don't consider politicians job applicants nor do I think that pay is their primary factor in running for office. If they are considered job applicants and the current lot is what we hired, then we are the worst bosses ever and have lost all control over our employees.

 

[FredA]

Nine of the ten most wealthy counties are within beltway....so don't try to tell me they don't do it for the money.
I'm always amazed somebody who goes to Washington for a $200k/yr salary leaves a multi-millionaire....and the voters can't figure out what's going on.....

 

[CzTeacherMan]

I've found that instead of complaining to the business owner/s about their political/religious views or boycotting them, it's best to humor and praise them for their courage. Thank them for taking a stance based upon principle instead of profit and ask them for literature, bumper stickers, yard signs and BS symbols. Lay it on thick, even if you want to gag and tell them that you will send them tons of business from your like minded friends. Say stuff like "I hear that" and "Amen brother!" Tell 'em they've made a customer for life and finally request a hefty discount. Works every time!

Brilliant!

 

[Steven]

I also look up subsidiary or umbrella companies under the parent company to stay away from as well when boycotting.

 

[gdjsky01]

I do have one comment about politics, I keep asking myself: "is this the best we have to offer?".

THE MOST INSIGHTFUL COMMENT IN THE THREAD. How can this be the best we can offer? Sickening.

 

[Zeus-cat]

THE MOST INSIGHTFUL COMMENT IN THE THREAD. How can this be the best we can offer? Sickening.

But look at what we put these people through to get the nomination and then run for the office. Almost a year and a half of ridiculously intense scrutiny. How many people would tolerate 10% of what the two major candidates have to put up with. Would anyone here put up with this? And I will remind you that most of us use screen names to post here so we don't know who you really are.

Really try to imagine that people are listening and recording almost everything that you say and do all day for a year and a half. Are you going to say something inappropriate during that time? Who wouldn't. There is no way that I would put up with it. And I bet well over 99% of people here wouldn't either.

By the nature of the beast you are only going to get people who are narcissists. And we created the beast so we are getting what we deserve.

 

[JStarStar]

I have this one in my office...

:y::y:

 

[KidRockET]

Be sure to VOTE...

Ha Ha Ha...

 

[mrichhcirm]

I have a friend whose wife boycotts (whoops , don't wanna get political here so let's not name names) a big box hobby and craft store. I Try to keep quiet about the fact that it's my best local source of estes motors so yer darn right I'm gonna shop there no matter what. Point is, boycotts are all well and good but the fact is you go to a business to get what you need, not to meet like minded people.

Funny part of this story is that we met my buddy's wife's sister there, and we agreed to keep each other's secret :wink:

 

[mrichhcirm]

But look at what we put these people through to get the nomination and then run for the office. Almost a year and a half of ridiculously intense scrutiny. How many people would tolerate 10% of what the two major candidates have to put up with. Would anyone here put up with this? And I will remind you that most of us use screen names to post here so we don't know who you really are.

Really try to imagine that people are listening and recording almost everything that you say and do all day for a year and a half. Are you going to say something inappropriate during that time? Who wouldn't. There is no way that I would put up with it. And I bet well over 99% of people here wouldn't either.

By the nature of the beast you are only going to get people who are narcissists. And we created the beast so we are getting what we deserve.

And say what you want about the big money donors....but these are generally people who have experience selecting candidates for high level executive decisions. But there is a tendency to try to discredit candidates backed by big donors.

The real failure, on both sides, is that party leadership were afraid to make adult decisions about who would actually be able to govern effectively. If that means you need to go against rank and file members for the greater good, we'll, that's leadership.

 

[boatgeek]

The real failure, on both sides, is that party leadership were afraid to make adult decisions about who would actually be able to govern effectively. If that means you need to go against rank and file members for the greater good, we'll, that's leadership.

While that's true to some extent, the rank and file still get to vote, and both of the current candidates won more votes than their competitors. Unless you're going to go back to a smoke-filled room method of deciding the party's nominees, the rank and file gets the last word. There's a theory that the Republican race would have been different if there were fewer candidates, but I'm not sure that's really borne out by facts. I know I've seen some info on this (I think on 538), but I'd have to go back and dig it up. Will do that if there's demand. There were only two serious candidates on the Democratic side, and Clinton won both the party leadership and the votes.

As far as the candidates being narcissists, I like what my brother said about that last cycle. You have people who are trying to become the leader of the free world. They'd have to believe they're better than anyone else to even think that they're qualified!

 

[Zeus-cat]

I listened to a radio show a few months back and they were saying that both major parties are trying to get further away from the smoke filled room concept. They want the rank and file to decide the nominee. I don't know; I have to believe the muckity-mucks in both parties are thinking that if they only had a more appealing candidate the election would be a slam dunk. Regardless of which side you are I think you have to agree that these two are the most polarizing candidates we have had in a long time.

 

[Peartree]

While that's true to some extent, the rank and file still get to vote, and both of the current candidates won more votes than their competitors. Unless you're going to go back to a smoke-filled room method of deciding the party's nominees, the rank and file gets the last word. There's a theory that the Republican race would have been different if there were fewer candidates, but I'm not sure that's really borne out by facts. I know I've seen some info on this (I think on 538), but I'd have to go back and dig it up. Will do that if there's demand. There were only two serious candidates on the Democratic side, and Clinton won both the party leadership and the votes.

As far as the candidates being narcissists, I like what my brother said about that last cycle. You have people who are trying to become the leader of the free world. They'd have to believe they're better than anyone else to even think that they're qualified!

The difficulty that I see in the current system is that the primaries are so spread out that many people feel disaffected because the candidate they support didn't even make it to the vote in their state, or the candidate that they voted for dropped out before the end of the race. Essentially allowing a few states to choose which candidates remain in the ballot for the later states skews the system. I'm in favor of letting the people choose, but why don't we let people put their hat in the ring, campaign for a set period of time, and then, on a particular day, all 50 states vote at the same time? Whoever wins a majority is the candidate. I would even be okay with doing it in rounds where we all vote on the same day, and the top two candidates advance to the primary in a run-off.

Clearly, the way we're doing it doesn't work.

 

[rcktnut]

The difficulty that I see in the current system is that the primaries are so spread out that many people feel disaffected because the candidate they support didn't even make it to the vote in their state, or the candidate that they voted for dropped out before the end of the race. Essentially allowing a few states to choose which candidates remain in the ballot for the later states skews the system. I'm in favor of letting the people choose, but why don't we let people put their hat in the ring, campaign for a set period of time, and then, on a particular day, all 50 states vote at the same time? Whoever wins a majority is the candidate. I would even be okay with doing it in rounds where we all vote on the same day, and the top two candidates advance to the primary in a run-off.

Clearly, the way we're doing it doesn't work.

+1 I like the way you think, that's the way it should be done. Now how do we get it changed??

 

[Zeus-cat]

I have often thought they should do primaries in groups; say three or four. I'll choose four for example. That would be 12 to 13 states in each group. Spread them out so that they are diverse geographically. Group 1 votes first. Cull the herd of candidates somehow. A month later group 2 votes. Cull the herd again. Groups 3 and 4 vote at one month intervals with the herd culled each time. Next election cycle Group 2 votes first and Group 1 goes last. This way you don't have Iowa or some other one issue state leading the pack every election. This is a major reason we have ethanol. Regardless of whether it is beneficial or not, we have ethanol because if you want to do well in Iowa you have to support it.

 

[boatgeek]

The difficulty that I see in the current system is that the primaries are so spread out that many people feel disaffected because the candidate they support didn't even make it to the vote in their state, or the candidate that they voted for dropped out before the end of the race. Essentially allowing a few states to choose which candidates remain in the ballot for the later states skews the system. I'm in favor of letting the people choose, but why don't we let people put their hat in the ring, campaign for a set period of time, and then, on a particular day, all 50 states vote at the same time? Whoever wins a majority is the candidate. I would even be okay with doing it in rounds where we all vote on the same day, and the top two candidates advance to the primary in a run-off.

Clearly, the way we're doing it doesn't work.

The problem with this approach (and to some extent Zeuscat's below) is that it substantially benefits candidates with lots of money so they can advertise or the ability to get free media coverage. The theory is that if you have a couple of smallish states vote early, a poorly funded candidate can do enough low-cost retail campaigning to do well and then attract the money needed to compete in New York, Texas, California, and Florida. I'm not sure that really works, but that's the theory. Another issue with a huge primary day is that you may end up with some really fringe candidates in the lead when you have lots of candidates on the ballot. Imagine you had a field of 10 candidates, 5 of whom are plausible nominees and 5 have hope but not very much. Let's say the bottom 5 take 5% of the vote each, leaving 75% for the top 5, or 15% each on average. You'd only have to get around 20%-25% to make it to the top two. On the Democratic side, you might end up with a nominee that believes in disarming all police, and on the Republican side you might get someone from the David Duke wing. That's a bit of hyperbole, but both parties have some people with support that is extremely dedicated but not widespread. If you go with the top two runoff idea, then you have a better shot of getting someone reasonable, but it's still possible or even likely to get deeply flawed people. [edit] This whole subthread is about our deeply flawed candidates, so you might not see the difference. I submit that the last several elections have chosen candidates who are pretty reasonable. I might not have liked Kerry or GW Bush, but I can see that they are reasonable people for the parties to nominate. So I'm more saying that if 1/8 fails to give reasonable results, maybe the system overall works OK but this was an anomaly and we might not want to change it so that there is more risk of terrible candidates[/edit]

To change the system, you have to convince the political parties to change how they allocate votes. That's a mess, partly because everyone who's in the current apparatus got there by benefiting from the current system. If one party get absolutely annihilated at the polls, they have an incentive to change, but the other party doesn't really have much incentive.

I do like Zeuscat's suggestion, although I'd say that it should be about 5-8 regions, with the most populous states always in the last group. Texas, New York, and California will always have political influence. No need to give them more by being first.

 

[Peartree]

The problem with this approach (and to some extent Zeuscat's below) is that it substantially benefits candidates with lots of money so they can advertise or the ability to get free media coverage. The theory is that if you have a couple of smallish states vote early, a poorly funded candidate can do enough low-cost retail campaigning to do well and then attract the money needed to compete in New York, Texas, California, and Florida. I'm not sure that really works, but that's the theory. Another issue with a huge primary day is that you may end up with some really fringe candidates in the lead when you have lots of candidates on the ballot. Imagine you had a field of 10 candidates, 5 of whom are plausible nominees and 5 have hope but not very much. Let's say the bottom 5 take 5% of the vote each, leaving 75% for the top 5, or 15% each on average. You'd only have to get around 20%-25% to make it to the top two. On the Democratic side, you might end up with a nominee that believes in disarming all police, and on the Republican side you might get someone from the David Duke wing. That's a bit of hyperbole, but both parties have some people with support that is extremely dedicated but not widespread. If you go with the top two runoff idea, then you have a better shot of getting someone reasonable, but it's still possible or even likely to get deeply flawed people. [edit] This whole subthread is about our deeply flawed candidates, so you might not see the difference. I submit that the last several elections have chosen candidates who are pretty reasonable. I might not have liked Kerry or GW Bush, but I can see that they are reasonable people for the parties to nominate. So I'm more saying that if 1/8 fails to give reasonable results, maybe the system overall works OK but this was an anomaly and we might not want to change it so that there is more risk of terrible candidates[/edit]

To change the system, you have to convince the political parties to change how they allocate votes. That's a mess, partly because everyone who's in the current apparatus got there by benefiting from the current system. If one party get absolutely annihilated at the polls, they have an incentive to change, but the other party doesn't really have much incentive.

I do like Zeuscat's suggestion, although I'd say that it should be about 5-8 regions, with the most populous states always in the last group. Texas, New York, and California will always have political influence. No need to give them more by being first.

I understand your math (I'm an engineer, I like math), but look at the results from this year's election. The numbers really aren't that different if you look at the total number of votes. If you tally up all the votes for Trump vs all the votes for NOT Trump, NOT Trump wins by a wide margin. Likewise, Hillary vs. NOT Hillary, NOT Hillary wins by a wide margin. Each candidate selected for this election only won about 25 percent of their party's support. That's why I like the idea of narrowing it down to two and having a national runoff.

Maybe use our existing system to select two, then a national election (all 50 states and miscellaneous territories simultaneously) to select one of the two. At least that way you know that half your party picked them.

 

[dr wogz]

In a dream world:
Campaigns are limited to a set dollar amount, say $30 million
Donations to that party are limited to a set amount, say $1000 per sponsor (we kinda do that here in Canada)
And the party is allowed to camping for a finite period of time, say 3 months.

Make it a level playing field, vote for them all on that one day.. there's your new leader..


Here (in Canada) the party leader is chosen by the card carrying people of that party. Each party then runs candidates in each riding /region. In some cases, we may have 6 people, in some on 1 or 2.. We (the populace) then vote for the party candidate we like / want for our riding / region. We may vote for the candidate, but not like the party, or visa versa. The elected party head (who will be the grand poo-bah) is also running for his riding / region. And yes, he may very well loose his riding, and therefore loose his seat at parliament / National assembly (then one elected official is to step aside to allow him a seat)..

So, while it is a private affair for the party to choose who will lead their party, it is also wise for them to choose someone who will get voted by the population..

 

[boatgeek]

I understand your math (I'm an engineer, I like math), but look at the results from this year's election. The numbers really aren't that different if you look at the total number of votes. If you tally up all the votes for Trump vs all the votes for NOT Trump, NOT Trump wins by a wide margin. Likewise, Hillary vs. NOT Hillary, NOT Hillary wins by a wide margin.

I disagree with your math. Using vote totals from Real Clear Politics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html and https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_vote_count.html) we come up with some pretty clear trends. On the D side, it's a lot easier because there were only two serious candidates. Clinton got ~3.7 million more votes than Sanders. On the R side, it's a little more fuzzy because of the much larger field at the beginning. RCP also appears to only show the top 4 candidates, but that's the data set I can google easily. Per RCP, Trump had 13.3M, Cruz had 7.6M, Kasich had 4.2M, and Rubio had 3.5M votes total. Granted, that does put Trump at ~47% of the total votes cast. However, if you look at the 16 elections mid-April and after (after the field was winnowed down), Trump won every single race with over 50% of the vote. What it looks like to me is that the people who preferred a candidate other than Trump in the late primaries weren't die-hard Not Trump voters; they just divided up amongst the candidates remaining in the race. By the end, he had absolute majorities.

Regardless, both parties gave their candidate more than 50% of the total vote. I am deliberately not including non-votes, since if you don't show up, you must not care all that much. On the R side particularly, there was a candidate for everyone at the beginning, so there's not much excuse not to show up.

 

[Cl(VII)]

I would love to see a system based on instant-runoff voting where all the primaries are held nationally on the same day. The parties could still decide how to assign delegates based on their state's outcome, but no one state would be able to skew the choices available to another state.

 

[Nessalco]

How about a Constitutional amendment requiring a binding option of "None of the Above" on all national elections? If that option wins the incumbent stays in office until another election can be held, and the losers can never run for that office again.

Seems to me it might instill a little more caution about who they nominate.

KO

 

[Peartree]

I would love to see a system based on instant-runoff voting where all the primaries are held nationally on the same day. The parties could still decide how to assign delegates based on their state's outcome, but no one state would be able to skew the choices available to another state.

Instant Runoff Voting. Thanks for posting that. I like this very much.

 

[dhbarr]

Instant Runoff Voting. Thanks for posting that. I like this very much.

For more reading here, Condorcet & Arrow. Schulze-modified Condorcet is about the least unfair system I know of.

And the technique is so easy for the voter! Put the candidates in a pile, w/ your favorite on top and least on the bottom.

 

[James Duffy]

The difficulty that I see in the current system is that the primaries are so spread out that many people feel disaffected because the candidate they support didn't even make it to the vote in their state, or the candidate that they voted for dropped out before the end of the race. Essentially allowing a few states to choose which candidates remain in the ballot for the later states skews the system. I'm in favor of letting the people choose, but why don't we let people put their hat in the ring, campaign for a set period of time, and then, on a particular day, all 50 states vote at the same time? Whoever wins a majority is the candidate. I would even be okay with doing it in rounds where we all vote on the same day, and the top two candidates advance to the primary in a run-off.

On the surface that would seem to be a reasonable solution. The problem, though, is that the candidates would still be chosen by a handful of states, just different ones. Instead of allowing Iowa, New Hampshire, and a few others to act as a proxy for the rest of the country, the primary focus would shift to the largest states. The campaign would then be fought in California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc., and the opportunity for a populist candidate such as Trump or Sanders would vanish. Also, the amount of money required to wage a successful primary campaign would be staggering.

Whatever happens next week, count on the parties to change the primary rules for 2020 to allow them to wield greater control over the candidates and the primary process. We're unlikely to see populist candidates such as Trump and Sanders enjoy as much success in the next rodeo.

James