• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

General Election Thread: Two Weeks Out

jhmd2000 said:
That alone would be more than sufficient rebuttal, but I would add the refusal to give families---the ultimate stakeholders---meaningful choice in their public school options impacts nearly every child who receives a public education. The scope and breadth of impact alone far outpaces any other policy.
Click to expand...

Well don't look to the GOP to fight for those positions, mass deportation and tax cuts is all that gets them to the polls.
 
Ball State Deac said:
Is Johnson expected to make the debate?
Click to expand...

Probably not, he's averaging around 10% in the five polls used to determine eligibility. Needs to get to 15%. Probably only happens if big state (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL) Dems and 'Pubs start supporting J/W since those states are in the bag.

Trump allegedly preparing via conversations with Christie, Rudy, and his kids. Not being tutored by experts on the issues or practicing against a HRC stand in.

Best description I've heard of what Hillary should expect vs Trump: a chimp with a machine gun.
 
What kind of fundraising apparatus/warchest, if any, does Johnson have? What does he have to lose in going all in with an ad buy to try to move the needle from 10% to 15%?

It's not like he's winning the election, or even coming close. So why not play the hand you're dealt and make an all-out push to get into the debates?

Or maybe they're trying that already and they just suck at it.
 
CantStandYa said:
What kind of fundraising apparatus/warchest, if any, does Johnson have? What does he have to lose in going all in with an ad buy to try to move the needle from 10% to 15%?

It's not like he's winning the election, or even coming close. So why not play the hand you're dealt and make an all-out push to get into the debates?

Or maybe they're trying that already and they just suck at it.
Click to expand...

Apparently they've been pulling in about a million dollars a day for the last month or so plus the couple million from previous months. Their plan was to do an ad blitz in the weeks leading up to the debates to try to push them to 15 percent. The debate committee has also hinted that they may give a little leeway in the 15% number so we'll see.
 
It really should be 15% of decided voters.
 
According to FEC filings, he has raised about $3 million and has $1.2 million cash on hand. (This is as of July month-end, so it doesn't include August fund-raising.)

Link
 
wakephan09 said:
FREE HAT!
Click to expand...

CgNcZpuUAAALIo4.jpg
 
avalon said:
According to FEC filings, he has raised about $3 million and has $1.2 million cash on hand. (This is as of July month-end, so it doesn't include August fund-raising.)

Link
Click to expand...

Well that settles that - no wonder they're not making ad buys.
 
PhDeac said:
I think 15% is legit. A 3rd party candidate would need to at least get 35% of the popular vote to win. 15% isn't even asking for half.
Click to expand...

I think the first debate should be more open and flexible, something like 5% and they must be on enough ballots to theoretically win. Then for the subsequent debates, raise the minimum to 15. Or do 10 for the second and 15 for the third. It is nearly impossible for a third party to get 15% without the national recognition that comes with being in a debate. If there's enough initial support, let them in and let people see where they they stand on issues and judge if they are legitimate candidates or not. When 2/3 of America wants Johnson in the debates and he's currently not meeting the debate requirements, it is time to change those requirements.
 
Also, where are you getting the 35% of the popular vote figure? With a strong 3rd party option, there's a good chance the presidency won't be decided by the electoral college and will get sent to the House. The House chooses between the top 3 finishers for President and top 2 for Vice President. Seems to me the Constitution was written with 3 parties in mind there.
 
Last edited:
SCDeac13 said:
Also, where are you getting the 35% of the popular vote figure? With a strong 3rd party option, there's a good chance the presidency won't be decided by the electoral college and will get sent to the House. The House chooses between the top 3 finishers for President and top 2 for Vice President. Seems to me the Constitution was written with 3 parties in mind there.
Click to expand...

Why would it go to the House? the person with the most votes gets the EVs like Bill did in 1992.
 
RJKarl said:
Why would it go to the House? the person with the most votes gets the EVs like Bill did in 1992.
Click to expand...

I assumed he was talking about the popular vote nationwide since that is currently the metric for the debates.

If you're talking about needing 35% needed to win a state, sure. Although that number could be less to win a state if you just need the most votes right? So, if the metric is changed to polling numbers on a state by state basis, how many would you need to fill the requirement? It is actually possible to win the presidency without winning a single state.
 
SCDeac13 said:
I think the first debate should be more open and flexible, something like 5% and they must be on enough ballots to theoretically win. Then for the subsequent debates, raise the minimum to 15. Or do 10 for the second and 15 for the third. It is nearly impossible for a third party to get 15% without the national recognition that comes with being in a debate. If there's enough initial support, let them in and let people see where they they stand on issues and judge if they are legitimate candidates or not. When 2/3 of America wants Johnson in the debates and he's currently not meeting the debate requirements, it is time to change those requirements.
Click to expand...

I like this approach.
 
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-model-management-illegal-immigration

Among the problems for Trump here are:

Models saying they were coming to visit or go to meetings but were working illegally. It is against the law to work on a tourist visa.

He charged outrageous rents and food costs to the models. Thus they were indebted to Trump. Like sweat shops do.

Up to fifteen people were living in small apartments.

This should be brought up at debates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top