Why The 2016 Presidential Election Cycle is the Most Interesting We May Ever See

[ColinHarvey]

This is the first Presidential Election Cycle in which I will be of age to take part, as will many other Millennials - And the jurisdiction is out for the youth, we seem to feel the Bern a lot stronger thn any other generation. I've long asked myself why this could be, the youth today voting for an elderly jewish guy whose been in Washington for thirty-five years? He doesn't seem to have much in common with the depicted transgressions of hipsterism. It only becomes more riddling when the Media portrays the Bern as an "outsider," or non-establishment - the ridiculousness of that I have yet to understand, seeing as though his first job, at forty, mind you, was being a senator. Where could he resonate with people my age? Oh, yeah. Free school.

The nouveau experience with this election cycle, is the anti-establishment nature of the candidates. The Clinton's and the Bush's are obvously exempt from that status, but it seems to be something everyone is riding on the coattails of. Ted Cruz did an interview at CPAC (not that anyone was watching), wherein the interviewer asked about the success of the anti-establishment candidates, and how this attributes to his own success. Now, before I delve into the specifics, I must first interupt, because there are some normal people in here who aren't familiar with CPAC as an organization. CPAC is, just that, a PAC of superficial donors from within the Republican inner-party that accomidates the needs of its favorite candidate with a little gravy after a trade-show like convention and debate. So essentially, there is already a flaw in the intrinsic logic necessary to form the question: an inner-party interviewer asking about the success of an inner-party candidate, with the percieved notion of the audience being, that Ted is some sort of outsider. Ted talks about how the establishment doesn't see him fit to run and how the nomination will be to a more Republican-friendly candidate and so on. It was a worthwhile peice to watch because it gave me a sense of remodie to a question I felt myself happenstantially culminating.

What happens if Donald Trump gets the nomination?

He won't, of course, he can't. The extrinsic emotions of the media when they even hear the name are the blindsided institutional opinion of the man. Ruppert Murdoch, founder of NewsCorp, sent "the D" letters about reconsidering his run, and jounalists at the debates can't even begin to have an orderly conversation with the man out of outrage. But the ides are changing, and have been for a few weeks. Meagyn Kelly didn't throw a fit in the last debate, she was given softball questions to ask, this being someone who from the first week of debates had a short tet-a-tet with the D. There had to have been some sort of conversation prior between FOX and Trump's campaign. His polling is going more steadily on an incline, and the dirty trick played by Mika Brzezinski in releasing the tapes of him with a low confidence only seemed to inspire a sense of humanity between him and his supporters. This was evidenced by his victories in Michigan and Mississippi - Michigan being a tough state to win as a Republican. So it seems as though the greatest troll in history, Donald Trump, has managed to squeeze his way into the lead in polls accross the country.

But what about Hillary and the Bern, why does she poll so poorly next to him?

I was talking amongst a few friends about the other anti-establisment performer, and, as millennials obviously they defended his reputation as a candidate when I mentioned he would never get the nomination for the dem party. But his issue is a lot more politically based on the development of the system that surrounds his nomination. The Democratic National Convention uses Super Delegates, which according to Democrat Party leader, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, means, well...

Party leaders and officials don't have to be in a position where they ae running against grass roots acivists.

And, with Hillary running a triumph of super delegates, being the party official she has always been, Debbie seems to have clearly spelled out the loser in the Dempocrat party for you. It doesn't matter who you vote for in the end, Bernie is not about to take the cake. Maybe in a few states, such as Michigan, but this seems to be referrred to as, "an upset," by your news media. So where the Republicans will never select Trump, or attempt to find a way to weasel out of it based on blatant corruption, the front runner for the Dems is rigged to lose and still save their tails.

But the real rigging comes not from the corruption in the parties, it's the polling itself. On and on, and again, I see reports talking about the polls. Americans take all sorts of these polls as fact. "New Poll Exclaims Bernie WIll Not Be Nominated." People assume that this actually means that he WON'T be nominated and take it upon themselves to vote according to who they believe will win, not who they agree with. This is where the parties get there power. It was au recent that I sat on a pleather couch with a box of pizza at my feet and an cat in my hands to recount the supposed admiration for the party that was demonstrated on a live broadcast from New Hampshire. The interviewer asked a young girl who would get her vote at the DNC. The girl looked estrangedly at the camera, and with a combination of up-talk and vocal fry uttered, "My vote was for Sanders, but I don't think he will win, so I'm going to be voting for Hillary instead, I think." Why not step back and think about that for a second. You don't believe Sanders can win, so you're not voting for him? Why are you voting for someone you don't agree with? So that you can be the girl that voted for the winner? In political science, we call this the Anamorphasis clause.

Unfortunately, for the Democrat Party, this is a Democracy (kinda ironic?). And with all of the Bernie flags and pennants in yards across America, "feel the Bern" bumper stickers and signage, I half expect Americans to be outraged that their candidate is nearly doomed. But they're not - not the ones I've talked to. They appathetically hang thier heads and wear their new Hillary pins, because in America we don't view a social contract anymore. According to Rousseau, and his likes, the reason we have elections in the first place is to chage the status-quo politicians without revolution, or beheadings. The current establishment is allowed to run because we give them that right, but we didn't give them the right to correct our actions when we, the "grassroots," get it wrong! If you're a Bern supporter, there is no shame in that, support Bernie as long as he has the ability to run a campaign, don't settle for Clinton just because in is in your own assumption that she is going to win the nomination. Demonstrate your frustration by contacting party officials, and keep discussing the nomination, even after you know the results.

The same goes for Trump supporters. Though I am of the view that the Republican party is wherethe upset will be this year. Because of the nature of the GOP, Trump style fringe candidates have close to no shot at the nomination in generality. Trump has been a part of networking since the celebrity apprentice, and understands the overall presentation of himself as a candidate, and how to respond to backlash, as witnessed in his excellent handling of, "Trumpertantrum" as a meme. He beautifully accepted it, used it in his campaign, juxtapposed it to his outrage as an American, and then suddenly, it vanished. The new meme that's taken its existance on my plasma screen, is that Trump is some sort of Hitler-esque candidate - in fact, an Australian report dedicated to this meme was broadcast over here, wherein the spokesperson compared Trump's campaign rhetoric to Hitler's - and all of it was so generic it could have been said by and candidate on the trail, but the mental image of "the D" and Adolf made the report its newsworthy accostas. Why is this something we allow for our political parties to engage in?

This, then, is the interesting part of the discussion, and I'm appoligize that I've spent so much livable time on the background for my debate. The two front runners at this point, Clinton and Trump, are sort of anathema candidates. But Trump cannot have the nomination. So in speculation, I'd assume that Ted Cruz will be picked by the establishment, as he is just not able to cary the weight of encouraging the country to audit the expenses of the Pentagon, and simplify contracts. One either loves or hates them, but some (a lot) hate them both, but due to the previously discussed Anamorphasis clause, one will come out with the lost votes. People are tired of voting in line with either a (insert South Park reference), but aren't intelligent enough to establish that their are more options in the third party realm. This leads me to the assumption that we may see a few candidates running in an election without party support - Is it legal, as they've already declared a party? No. Either way, this will be an election that could be as controversial as the 2000 scandal, and could shape the American political system in a new light from here on out.

[Fugue]

If you think the "grassroots" will simply sit down if the DNC steals the primary away from Sanders, with pure "super delegates" baloney, you are drunk. If Bernie loses at all, it might already be as dire for the DNC as a Trump nomination is for the RNC.

If that scum Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and her cabal of Wall Street cronies she likes to call her party, decide to brazenly ignore primary voters, the party is finished. The DNC's best hope, in such a case, would be mutual destruction, where both of the parties in this two party farce become so weak that neither loses any relative power. Since the Hillary Clinton supporters are still riding the way of the Democratic progressivism myth, the votes might be tight enough to fool the same ignorant public that believe Hillary Clinton is the "safe" candidate, to pretend like a primary theft was legitimate. But on the Republican side, the RNC would have to ignore the vote so much, to keep Trump out, to the point where even a homeless person would be aware of what they had done.

[ColinHarvey]

Well said! What do you think will happen to the candidates? Do you think If the R/DNC falls through on a legitimate nomination they will need to revoke their initial nom, or do you think their voter base will scatter with the candidates?

[Fugue]

The RNC base is volatile and aggressive. If they refuse to nominate the official victor, the party will burn. If Trump wins big on the next few states, the RNC will bow their heads to Trump. On the DNC side, the loyal establishment base (mostly the old farts lining up for Hillary Clinton) are a bunch of lukewarm halfwits, but they are not as split as the establishment Republicans, so they will united with HC getting coronated against the votes. It remains to be seen what the Sanders supporters would do, in such a case, but it probably wouldn't be good for the DNC.

The problem is that even if Bernie manages to pull an upset, the DNC and the media cheating for HC is likely to make it a race so tight that he only wins by a hair, so the establishment litigators will be able to baffle the sheep with bullshit as the DNC coronates HC, anyway. It's an even bigger question how the base will react to that, but my educated guess is that they would bow their heads.

[Fugue]

iow, my prediction is that Bernie needs to win big, to win at all.

[BrunetteNYC]

Trump is winning all the way around and it won't stop.

[Spirit_Is_Free]

First I am not American and don't completely understand the party nomination system but from what I can gather from questions/answers here, it would seem that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are the peoples' choice with neither party headquarters wanting them to get the nomination.
From what I understand Sanders and Clinton are neck and neck in delegate nominations and Clinton way ahead in super delegate nominations while the Republicans are praying that Trump doesn't have a 50% majority by convention so he can be stymied.
My basic belief if you believe in democracy, you may not agree with the candidate who gets the majority but you accept their right to govern while retaining the right to protest and question their decisions (peacefully) while actively hoping your preferred candidate gets a majority next election.
One final thought on the US electoral system is that it totally favours a funded candidate from the two parties or a super rich independent. Third or more parties and poorer independents seem a bit disenfranchised. That is why all successful candidates up to now have had the whiff of establishment.
If a Sanders/Trump election came about it would be a good day for social democracy - I will hold fire on my views on both candidates but just applaud the glass ceiling being broken.

[ColinHarvey]

Thank you. I was beginning to think no one had bothered to read it.

[FilthyPervert]

Trump is an idiot. Rubio is getting the nomination and hillary is winning the election by a landslide. There Is no one here other than hillary who ever stood a chance, one sided as fuck and not remotely interesting.

Obama vs romney was interesting.

[Fugue]

Then you are ignoring the polls. Bernie does much better than Hillary against Republicans.

[FilthyPervert]

@Fugue bernie isn't getting anything

[Fugue]

gloog brongor dluuf!

[chrisbigman]

Seriously? How much different is this election from the last election, aside from different names? There's no allowance of independent candidates to choose from. Nobody is willing to listen to independents. It's either Democrats or Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Dear people, candidates can only win if you vote for them!

[ColinHarvey]

Unfortunately, no, we have an electoral congress - see the 2000 election scandal.

[Opinion Owner]

Um I was referencing the part where you were talking about people voting for a candidate they don't agree with

[ColinHarvey]

That's true - though third parties need some form of delegate representation in the electoral college, which the current system would never allow. But if enough people are willing to kill the system by voting for the candidates they agree with things could change. That is why this is such an interesting election!