election 2020 trump v who

WolfeTone said:
Really? Thats new on me. In any case, its to the obvious greater extent in US elections.
Click to expand...

Plenty of it going on here.

Fast forward to 2019. We see a robust system, with more than 1,800 registrants and in excess of 30,000 returns on the Register. Lobbying is clearly alive and well in Ireland – and so it should be.
Click to expand...
 
There's a world of difference between using $100 million to help Democrats get elected through paid ads and so on - and actually buying a seat as used to go on in the old British corrupt boroughs...
 
Leo said:
Plenty of it going on here.
Click to expand...


Thanks Leo, thats lobbying. Thats quite typical in all democracies, and the system you highlight endeavors to provide transparency in who is lobbying who, and for what purpose.

Whats not transparent in the US is why someone like Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg would spend millions and millions of dollars supporting campaigns of rival Republican candidates against the local Democratic candidate, then spend $100m campaigning for some Democratic candidates over others - suffice that the candidates he supports financially, have agreed to vote in accordance to his wishes.

Would it have anything to do with with wanting the 'right' people in control on both sides of the house?
Its clear to me that it is. As long as those in control of Congress are subservient first to needs and interests of corporatism over the needs and interests of society at large then a system of corporate fascism is at play - Profit before People.
Its not a total takeover, yet. But im in no doubt, from the outside looking in, that Oil & Energy, Insurance, Banking, Weapons, Media industries have a grip on the political institutions of the US that extends way beyond what any normal civilised democracy should bear.
These are dangerous times in my opinion. Tonight's 'super Tuesday' will be interesting to watch.
 
Hillary Clinton is already on record as beating Trump by 3 million votes. Based on that form she should run again but this time take a bit more care with vote management.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Hillary Clinton is already on record as beating Trump by 3 million votes. Based on that form she should run again but this time take a bit more care with vote management.
Click to expand...
Hillary knows that boat has long sailed......she would,nt have a chance this time around.
 
WolfeTone said:
Whats not transparent in the US is why someone like Democratic candidate Mike Bloomberg would spend millions and millions of dollars supporting campaigns of rival Republican candidates against the local Democratic candidate, then spend $100m campaigning for some Democratic candidates over others - suffice that the candidates he supports financially, have agreed to vote in accordance to his wishes.
Click to expand...

That's heading along conspiracy theory lines there. Again, every democracy has wealthy and not so wealthy vested interests supporting the campaigns of politicians they believe will best serve their interests. The construction industry here funding Fianna Fail in the run up to the bust for example, Sinn Fein fundraising in the US, etc.. Supporting a campaign is rarely buying votes, that's usually more a brown envelope kind of transaction.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
Hillary Clinton is already on record as beating Trump by 3 million votes.
Click to expand...
It's an Electoral College system. It it were a popular vote system Trump would have approached it differently. For example, there would have been merit in campaigning in California to try to get more of the Republican vote out.
 
michaelm said:
It's an Electoral College system. It it were a popular vote system Trump would have approached it differently. For example, there would have been merit in campaigning in California to try to get more of the Republican vote out.
Click to expand...

I disagree. California has been a Democrat stronghold since Clinton won it in 1992. Trump always needed to focus on other states. Hillary Clinton lost key states by a total of just 80K votes.

If you recall election night 2016, winning the Presidency seemed to shock Trump as much as somee pundits.
 
TarfHead said:
Trump always needed to focus on other states.
Click to expand...
Of course, and because the US employs an Electoral College system. That was my point to the Duke. It wasn't a popular vote contest otherwise Trump would have approached it differently.
 
michaelm said:
Of course, and because the US employs an Electoral College system. That was my point to the Duke. It wasn't a popular vote contest otherwise Trump would have approached it differently.
Click to expand...

California and New York in particular were won by the Democrats in huge margins so there was no point in Trump committing time and money and policy attention there.
There's no equivalent large state with a huge Republican margin.
It'd be a totally different contest without the electoral college or even a modified form of it where there is a bonus for winning the state but some sort of split based on proportion of the vote e.g. instead of winner takes all in Florida & Texas.
 
Leo said:
Again, every democracy has wealthy and not so wealthy vested interests supporting the campaigns of politicians they believe will best serve their interests.
Click to expand...

Of course, and the purpose of lobby register is to facilitate openness and transparency of who is lobbying who and for what purpose.

The accusations of 'Galway tents' and some politicians 'living beyond their means' are accusations of alleged impropriety - that some people are acting outside the register of lobbyists to influence political decisions, elections etc.
This is not acceptable in Ireland, save the people deciding otherwise at the ballot box.

In the US, there appears to be no limit and very little oversight of political lobbying, financial donations and the purposes of those donations.
This leaves the whole system wide open to corruption for those with deep pockets to unduly interfere in election outcomes, or effectively disenfranchise the votes of millions of ordinary people who dont have such resources.

Its not me peddling some conspiracy theory, im only echoing what Elizabeth Warren said about Mick Bloomberg being the riskiest candidate because of how much money he spends 'campaigning' for candidates on both sides of the house.
Bloomberg himself basically admits he buys elections.
 
The Donald is a complete shoe in for this contest. Normally election are about swings to and fro from the last time, with the losing party hoping for more to's than fro's. I can't see anybody who voted for The Donald having changed their minds. He has delivered in spades within the constraints that a Democratic House would allow.
The betting is 1.74 on Betfair, but I don't like betting odds on and in any case events could happen in 9 months - he will be 74 by then after all.
 
I agree, with the exception that I think Sanders has the capacity to galvanize the working class, marginalized and disenfranchised. He has a track record of drawing people out to vote.
Im not saying he would beat Trump, he is just the best candidate to take him on in my opinion.
If Biden gets the nomination, its game over.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
The Donald is a complete shoe in for this contest. Normally election are about swings to and fro from the last time, with the losing party hoping for more to's than fro's. I can't see anybody who voted for The Donald having changed their minds. He has delivered in spades within the constraints that a Democratic House would allow.
The betting is 1.74 on Betfair, but I don't like betting odds on and in any case events could happen in 9 months - he will be 74 by then after all.
Click to expand...

1.74, what's that in old odds? Approximately 7/4 on for Trump to be re-elected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top