Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

2016 United States Presidential election

On 4 July 1776, the Continental Congress of thirteen American colonies declared that they were independent sovereign states and no longer part of the British Empire as they no longer wished to be ruled by an individual whose only claim as Head of State was that they were related to someone who had served in the role previously.

Instead, it appears that the American public will get to choose between a Clinton and a Bush.

Who do you think will run? And who do you think will win? Do you care? Should you care?
«13

Comments

  • We have to care. The eventual winner becomes the most powerful individual on the planet.

    The personality cult infected American politics long ago. Looking good will be as important as what is said.

    I have no idea of the outcome but I will follow it very closely and with great interest.

    Over to you Fiissh
  • Ok so will be interesting to see if ChatltonLife have a labour/ democrat and Tory / republican demographic.
  • We have to care. The eventual winner becomes the most powerful individual on the planet.

    The personality cult infected American politics long ago. Looking good will be as important as what is said.

    I have no idea of the outcome but I will follow it very closely and with great interest.

    Over to you Fiissh

    So, who's best for us?
  • Did I hear that Donald Trump has thrown his dodgy syrup into the ring too?
  • Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    Congress have the real power in the USA - as the House of Commons do here.
  • bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    Congress have the real power in the USA - as the House of Commons do here.
    That should be the case, however, the President can use "executive" actions to by-pass the process, as this President has done recently, ignoring The Constitution.
  • I really enjoy the primaries and caucuses in the nomination race. I'm a Democrat by inclination, but as Hillary's a shoo-in there I'm actually looking forward to the Republican race more. There are some real (relative) heavyweights in there so it's going to get brutal at times I reckon.

    Bush is obviously the favourite, so they'll all try to take him down early, but with Rubio, Huckabee, Santorum, Cruz and jokers like Trump and Perry declared, with Jindal and Christie likely to come in, it's going to be entertaining for political nerds like me (us?).

    President Obama maintains that the primary race with Hillary in 2008 made him a stronger candidate and better President, and it was harder than the actual election race against McCain. I can see the Republican race going the same way, and Hillary needs to be careful that she isn't out of practice when she's directly up against her opponent, who will be debate-hardened by then. I have a feeling it won't be Bush though.

    Looking forward to it.
  • limeygent said:

    bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    Congress have the real power in the USA - as the House of Commons do here.
    That should be the case, however, the President can use "executive" actions to by-pass the process, as this President has done recently, ignoring The Constitution.
    Doesn't the constitution (Article 1) allow for either a presidential proclamation or veto?
  • Sponsored links:


  • bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    Congress have the real power in the USA - as the House of Commons do here.



    remember that Congress is a bicameral legislature .. The Senate and the House of Representatives .. more reminiscent of the House of Commons AND the House of Lords
  • bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    Congress have the real power in the USA - as the House of Commons do here.



    remember that Congress is a bicameral legislature .. The Senate and the House of Representatives .. more reminiscent of the House of Commons AND the House of Lords
    But different in that they are both elected!!
  • What about the Fillibuster in American politics. Individual Senators (I think or is it govenors in the House of Representatives) standing and talking for hours on end to defeat a bill by time running out for it to pass

  • MrOneLung said:

    Ok so will be interesting to see if ChatltonLife have a labour/ democrat and Tory / republican demographic.

    Actually, having studied US politics this year at A-Level, they don't reflect our 2 main parties at all. The Republicans are extremely right wing and the Democrats are just less right wing.
    Just not true.
  • bobmunro said:

    bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    Congress have the real power in the USA - as the House of Commons do here.



    remember that Congress is a bicameral legislature .. The Senate and the House of Representatives .. more reminiscent of the House of Commons AND the House of Lords
    But different in that they are both elected!!
    very true
  • cabbles said:

    What about the Fillibuster in American politics. Individual Senators (I think or is it govenors in the House of Representatives) standing and talking for hours on end to defeat a bill by time running out for it to pass

    same thing happens in our H o C
  • bobmunro said:

    limeygent said:

    bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    Congress have the real power in the USA - as the House of Commons do here.
    That should be the case, however, the President can use "executive" actions to by-pass the process, as this President has done recently, ignoring The Constitution.
    Doesn't the constitution (Article 1) allow for either a presidential proclamation or veto?
    "In times of emergency".
  • limeygent said:

    bobmunro said:

    limeygent said:

    bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    Congress have the real power in the USA - as the House of Commons do here.
    That should be the case, however, the President can use "executive" actions to by-pass the process, as this President has done recently, ignoring The Constitution.
    Doesn't the constitution (Article 1) allow for either a presidential proclamation or veto?
    "In times of emergency".
    who declares a 'state of emergency' ?
  • limeygent said:

    bobmunro said:

    limeygent said:

    bobmunro said:

    Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    Congress have the real power in the USA - as the House of Commons do here.
    That should be the case, however, the President can use "executive" actions to by-pass the process, as this President has done recently, ignoring The Constitution.
    Doesn't the constitution (Article 1) allow for either a presidential proclamation or veto?
    "In times of emergency".
    Looks like Obama has a pretty good constitutional adherence record!!

    http://www.senate.gov/reference/Legislation/Vetoes/vetoCounts.htm

    Old Grover Cleveland was a bit of a control freak by the looks of things!! Although seemed to tone it down a bit in his second term!!
  • edited June 2015
    A "state of emergency" is usually declared by a State Governor at the time of a natural disaster, or as we saw recently in Baltimore, civil unrest.
    "In times of emergency" is a different thing, likely a recognized national threat such as an attack or maybe an epidemic. The President can make a decision without approval.
    An executive order is not supposed to be used to by-pass the normal legislative process.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Chizz said:

    the one part of the US Presidential Election process that I look on with a bit of envy is the fact the US public actually get to vote for the person they want to be the next President, albeit from a very short list (almost always two). Whereas, no-one in the UK gets to vote either for the Head of State (the Monarch) or the head of government (the Prime Minister). We merely choose, between us, which is the largest party and therefore who is most likely to be Prime Minster by default. In the US, it's A or B, in the UK, there are an almost infinite number of variables.

    This means, therefore, that the US gets the Head of State that its people choose; and with a demonstrable mandate. Obama polled 65.9m votes last time, representing 51.1% of the electorate, so he clearly won. Here, the winning party polled 36.1% of the electorate; and, while David Cameron earned a thumping majority in his constituency, with a 60.2% share, only 35,201 people actually voted for him.

    This means that, when Obama and Cameron stand together at a summit, it's odd to think that one of them "scraped home" with more than 65 million votes; while the other one sailed back in to office with just over 35,000 votes.

    (This isn't a party political point; we always have this baffling anomaly whoever wins).

    I think you will find that in a lot of cases people who vote do vote for the PM, how many time did you hear 'I cant vote for Labour, Ed Miliband looks like a tit...etc..etc' I think a lot of people who voted in the last GE wouldnt know the name of their MP.
  • Executive orders have been used by nearly every President since Washington. Obama has used them less frequently than any President since Cleveland

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php


    Of course , if there is a Republican in the WH, the Dems complain that he is using EOs unconstitutionally and vice versa.
  • Our local MP is old school Labour and basically a good egg, but I had to tell him I couldn't vote for him if it meant supporting the Miliband/Balls car-crash ticket. He knows perfectly well he lost votes for that reason but because of the demographic of the constituency he is never going to be in danger of losing his seat. I think our system is a bit more presidential than Chizz suggests.

    Anyway if we were voting for head of state (The Queen vs Miliband or Cameron) I am absolutely certain it would be a royal landslide.

    Those who got fed up with the length and quality of the UK election campaign should think very carefully about whether they would prefer the US system which seems truly interminable and lacking in quality policy analysis from this side of the pond!
  • You're right, it is interminable.
  • Anyone wanting a crash course in U.S. politics do what I did and watch house of cards.
  • @Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?

    *That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.
  • Chizz said:

    On 4 July 1776, the Continental Congress of thirteen American colonies declared that they were independent sovereign states and no longer part of the British Empire as they no longer wished to be ruled by an individual whose only claim as Head of State was that they were related to someone who had served in the role previously.

    Instead, it appears that the American public will get to choose between a Clinton and a Bush.

    Who do you think will run? And who do you think will win? Do you care? Should you care?

    America was a colony until the 1783 treaty of Paris. Under the terms of treaty the US election is of no concern to us.
  • Don't they vote for about 20 things at once, hence voting machines, hanging chads and all that malarkey
  • Chizz said:

    @Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?

    *That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.

    I don't think it is that different. Like here, the vast majority of democrats will vote for the democratic nominee irrespective of what they think of him and the vast majority of Republican voters will vote for the Republican nominee irrespective of what they think of him.
  • Chizz said:

    @Greenie @Bryan_Kynsie Let me illustrate the point I am making by asking you a simple question: did you put a cross next to David Cameron's name or Ed Miliband's name on the ballot paper?

    *That* is the difference I am illustrating. In the United States, voters elect the Head of State at the ballot box. In the UK, not only do we not have the ability to choose the Head of State, we don't even have the choice of Prime Minster.

    I don't think it is that different. Like here, the vast majority of democrats will vote for the democratic nominee irrespective of what they think of him and the vast majority of Republican voters will vote for the Republican nominee irrespective of what they think of him.
    Absolutely correct. "Granma always voted Democrat, my Dad and mum always voted Democrat, I've always voted Democrat, not going to change now," no matter the candidate. Same with Republicans, that's why the "undecided" voter is "key". Unfortunately they often don't go for the candidate who's the most qualified.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!