Presidential Primaries Megathread: (Election'16 V.3)

[NickCrash]

After having watched this campaign for so long and from a 3rd person's perspective (aka not Us citizen), it appears that the most logical plan is

Republicans: Eat each other by targeting the already unpopular candidates, so Trump can prevail, appear more logical and able to handle a debate without losing his words and residing to sarcasm to avoid questions and challenges. Now you may have a chance against the Democrats who appear to steamroll through this race. They either need to start projecting Trump's ideas and specific course of action, or they are done.

Democrats: Make indirect support to the 2nd and 3rd candidates of the Republicans, forcing Trump to make consecutive mistakes, in order for the party to favor Cruz or whomever else. At the same time Clinton should realize her position and force more debates, in order to make Sanders appear like the excellent candidate. This needs to happen later in the year, when the elections come close, and Clinton's abdication would send all her supporters to Sanders. He's gaining ground not only against her, but the Republicans. Given they are closer in ideological status than say Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Bush, she needs to get the Republican votes and then send them to Bernie, assuring a win. Right now, Sanders has come a long way through, and from being the underdog, he's reaching poll position.

The picture Jericho posted has the fiscal policy as an horizontal axis, not the "wings" in general. That's what the following questions play upon. They mix social and fiscal views of the same matter, and as such provide you with multiple facets of the same thing (see Decentralization and Capitalism, as in Neo-liberalism).

[Chase]

You want to talk about feasibility - here's how I see it.

Democrats: Hillary Clinton needs to hold the support of the Democratic electorate - or she will be exposed, beat Sanders by a narrow margin due to votes from the previous Obama/Clinton coalition (Older voters who are either female or an ethnic minority), and look very fragile against what may be a Donald Trump that holds the support of a good size of the Republican electorate -or- a Marco Rubio that will be very easy to coalesce around (who threatens both Hillary -and- Bernie). Hillary quelling the "revolution" quicker would help the Democrats draft a liberal policy moderate voters and undecided Republicans can accept.

Alternatively: Sanders needs to crack the Clintons' safe BEFORE Super Tuesday (or he will lose most likely) and force the DNC to treat him as a legitimate candidate. This isn't impossible as I predicted earlier in the thread, but I don't think Bernie has much time and can't afford delegates to favor his opponent in more states as they have been.

Republicans: The GOP has to thin the field fast or they are going to have to embrace Trump period. The consensus among the pundits is that the Republican primary has been clogged with far too many candidates, which has allowed for Trump to steadily win states with only 30-something of the vote. With Cruz and Rubio both roughly earning 22 percent - Ben Carson and Kasich dropping out would break the Trump machine if the argument that Trump's ceiling is low holds true.

As I said before, if the GOP wants to win, they need to win with Rubio. I'm not sold on Donald Trump being the real representative of the Republican Party and I think if the Democrats attack it the way NickCrash describes, they end up nominating Marco Rubio - who is best equipped to run in November.

If anything, The Democrats might -want- Donald Trump to win the nomination. Especially if he can't clear the 30-something percentile in a state within HIS OWN PARTY.

[Eviora]

Unfortunately, I do want Trump to win the nomination at this point, for two reasons.

1. I think Democrats will rally around whichever of their candidates wins the primary to beat him in an election. If nothing else, Trump has become recognizable - he would be a lightning rod for drawing out those who would vote against him.

2. Sad to say, but I think his other two realistic opponents would be worse presidents than he would. Cruz is the worst kind of extremist, and even Rubio seems incapable of keeping his religious beliefs out of politics. 'Fraid that puts me in just plain self defense mode when it comes to Republican candidates.

[Chase]

le bump - It's caucus day in Navada for GOP voters. Check the first post.

Also Eviora: WHOA WHOA WHOA.

Have a video. C:

At this Iowa town hall - the atheist asking the question gets essentially a response that respects the atheist's beliefs in totality - regardless of Marco leaning on his faith personally regardless of whatever leadership position he is in. If you're perhaps worried about things like LGBT equality and Abortion - the former doesn't sound like Rubio's axe to grind (and Obergefell v. Hodges' ruling seems pretty safe under Rubio - which is good news for those kinds of voters.) and the later - while Rubio himself holds an extremely partisan position of abolishment on it - should also be protected by the ruling of Roe v. Wade - ESPECIALLY if President Obama can get a Supreme Court Justice through Congress before his term ends.

If you are really wanting a Democrat to win the nomination - yes, I do agree that Trump would turn out the vote better than Hillary would on her own if she were the nominee (and I kinda think Sanders - if he really has this large movement going on - might house Trump). If you're worried about the GOP nomination for the sake of genuine consideration in November...

I would think you would want Rubio over Trump. Marco has less drastic policies than Trump does. I don't think a wall and 11 million deportations is something a Democrat should want on the table if looking to give both candidates in the general election a chance.

[Eviora]

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/marco-rubio

http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-nationwide-marriage-equality

Neither of them are good, but Trump is more ambiguous on LGBT rights issues. While I certainly agree that walls and deportations are undesirable, like I said, I'm basically thinking in pure self defense mode with regards to this election. I hate having to think that way (Not that it matters, 'cause I won't be voting for a Republican on any level regardless) but that's the sort of awful situation discrimination puts people in.

[Chase]

Trump appears to be earning his biggest win yet - with a 42 percent showing.

Senator Rubio - you might want to go on the market for a new roof. It appears the ceilings busted.

[Chase]

Tonight - in the TENTH Republican Presidential Debate - Donald Trump walked into a blockade.

From one corner of the ring was a Cuban-American senator that had previously spent the first nine debates looking for notecards and a teleprompter as the establishment piled support - and he came out fiercer than anyone else on the stage.

From another, the home-court-advantage owner and yet another Cuban-American senator proved why he was one of the best cross-examiners in the nation in my humble opinion

FROM YET ANOTHER, the often forgotten governor of Ohio who had some moments to bow up to the businessman.

..and even Dr. Carson got a few memorable quotes in - even when the moderators only wanted his opinion on Mr. Trump's policies as opposed to his own.

---

Houston, Texas, on the campus of UH, was the site and the attending Texans witnessed a few different chords in what was par for the course - an at times nasty debate. However - the final five didn't just let one another steamroll each other this time.

Taking heat for his infamous New Hampshire meltdown by Trump (being called a "choke artist") - Rubio swiftly counterattacked Trump on doing the exact same thing - drawing the largest applause of the night and marking a much better performance in Texas. Marco had a night to remember simply because it was a night in which it didn't matter what the issue was - if he could stunt Donald - he did just that. Relentlessly.

Senator Ted Cruz stood by his fellow Senator - opting to be more sparse and methodical - challenging the Donald's notion that a neutral position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was "liberal" and relative to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Cruz has been the champion of measuring Trump's stances throughout the years against those of their liberal opponents, and made a significant argument that stuck on comparing Trump's "not let anyone die in the streets" declaration to the type of healthcare Bernie Sanders would support - a damn near effective move in a Republican race.

BOTH senators jumped on the casino mogul on the fraud case involving Trump University, indicating that a nominated Trump standing before a judge would be at best as equally damning as his opponent in Hillary Clinton doing the same thing (for her e-mail scandal.)

It was a night that involved so much fire for Cruz - who was able to effectively hoard speaking time in his home state by holding the moderators to the allowing of extra time to attacked candidates - so much so that it neglected Kasich and Carson in the wings.

Carson's best line of the night was an interjection on a Cruz-Trump spat in which Ted again made a play for extra speaking time, seemingly yelling "Can someone attack ME?" and drawing a lot of laughs.

This may have been Trump's worst showing - along with Rubio's best. The questions that should be asked though...

Is it too late - and does it even matter?

[Eviora]

I doubt it matters. Based on my experiences with people, I find that far more are swayed by irrational things than are by logic.

This is a nifty little video I ran into the other day that has something to say about the whole Trump debacle.

[Chase]

Alabama - Trump and Clinton

Alabama was expected to go big for Trump due to his huge rallies in places like Tuscaloosa. In many southern states - Clinton was supposed to hold well due to minority voters and she did here.

Alaska - Cruz

Alaska is going to go down as one of the closest contests nobody talked about because it was on the West Coast. The war was set though between the two popular populist Republican candidates. In the Trump Corner, a lady by the name of Sarah Palin had previously given Trump her endorsement. For Ted Cruz, a very extensive ground game that has previously proven to be immensely effective when it comes to caucusing from under the Donald's nose. The Texan went in and started a coup in the house that Sarah built - giving himself 2 primary victories (Texas, Oklahoma) and two caucus victories (Iowa, Alaska)

American Samoa - Clinton

Bernie doesn't seem to get a lot of love from this territory at all. The Samoa when huge for Hillary. The GOP doesn't hold primaries outside of the 50 states.

Arkansas - Trump / Clinton

A very competitive state for the Republican Party Big Three, being a state that Trump may have one solely due to the lack of a clear Anti-Trump alternative candidate - and another southern "easy cash-in" for Clinton.

Colorado - Sanders

Arguably the biggest win of the night for the Bernie camp in nearly a 60-40 split. Republicans will caucus later on in Colorado.

Democrats Abroad - Sanders

Bernie Sanders will forever be enshrined in history as being the first candidate to win a primary held for US citizens throughout the world. The Republicans need to get on this, because this is a really neat concept.

Georgia - Trump / Clinton

Georgia...what's the deal. How does the electorate vote Marco Rubio second place, but Cruz gets the higher delegate count? Do Republicans have superdelegates too? Oh yeah. Deep South. Clinton Country.

Massachusetts - Trump / Clinton

How. Did Bernie. NOT. Win this state. HOW. Huge upset for Clinton in my opinion. In Bernie's defense - it was close. It was most definitely a can of whoop-ass for Trumps opponents on the other hand.

Minnesota - Rubio / Sanders

HOORAY. MARCO'S A WINNER AFTER ALL. - ....actually, Minnesota gets to be crowned the "Anti-Trump" king of the 50 states - as Donald found himself in THIRD behind Ted Cruz here. Speaking of Cruz, he tied the winner in Rubio for delegates. I guess it's a hollow victory, but a WINS A WIN BABY.

Oklahoma - Cruz / Sanders

The Sooner State was "Upset City" in my opinion. Bernie got his most surprising victory here, while Ted Cruz extended his welcoming arms to snatch what was an originally strong Trump state.

Tennessee - Trump / Clinton

This is one of those states Marco Rubio got shafted in. He only trailed Ted Cruz by 3 percentage points, and ended up behind Cruz again in delegates only earning 3 to Ted's 12. Ouch. Clinton won big again here.

Texas - Cruz / Clinton

The biggest delegate awarding states of the day, and Ted Cruz got just what he ordered from his native state and THEN some, denying Marco ANY delegates at all and preserving his second place national chase of the Donald, getting an opportunity paint himself as the better candidate to vote for down the stretch. Clinton also used Texas to widen the gap from Sanders.

Vermont - Trump / Sanders

No surprises out of Vermont. Sanders lives here and beat the living crap out of Hillary at home. Trump is going to be more favorable in the Northeast than anywhere else in the country.

Virginia - Trump / Clinton

This is one of the states Marco Rubio made up a lot of ground in, and another state in which the lack of a head-to-head contest gave Trump the nod. Virginia had very similar numbers as most of the other southern states for Clinton. Fun Fact, ALL FIVE GOP candidates picked up delegates from Viriginia. GOOD JOB DR. CARSON - DIDN'T GET SHUT OUT.

[Eviora]

Rubio is toast. No idea how close Cruz is to Trump in terms of delegates, but I imagine he's in significant peril despite his victories. Sadly, Bernie's in quite a pinch, too. =( Let's hope Hillary shapes up a bit, 'cause she's in serious danger of being Trumped this fall.

Out of curiosity, would you conservatives actually vote for Trump over Hillary?

Anyway, here's to hoping the establishment Republicans try to snub Trump as much as possible and cause him to go rogue. It would be so kind of him to split the party in two in November.

[Guest]

Here's a list of delegates for easy reference right now, as of 3/3/2016:

REPUBLICAN:

1,237 needed for nomination · 1,777 available

• Trump: 319
• Cruz: 226
• Rubio: 110
• Kasich: 25
• Carson: 8

DEMOCRATIC:

2,383 needed for nomination · 3,286 available

• Clinton: 1,052
• ​Sanders: 427

As for opinions...

Backlash will prevent Trump from winning over Hillary in the general elections, but I absolutely believe Trump should be considered a big threat at this point. Cruz could probably still pull an upset over Trump, but I highly doubt it. Rubio and everyone else in the Republican field is done. Sanders is also done in the democratic field, this hill is way too steep for him to climb out of.

I'm more concerned about what the GOP as a whole will do in general, they REALLY don't want Trump. Tensions between the GOP and the Dems seem poised to rise either way.

[Deleted User]

I'm going to call it right now. After March 15th with Ohio and Florida, both Rubio and Kasich are both going to drop. Oh and Carson is still around for some reason. Don't know if Bernie has a shot.

As for Cruz's chances, I'd give him a 30% chance assuming my prediction holds true.

[Eviora]

My prediction is that Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, Trump the Republican one. Then Trump is betrayed due to establishment shenanigans, thereby handing the presidency to Hillary.

[Chase]

Rubio is toast. No idea how close Cruz is to Trump in terms of delegates, but I imagine he's in significant peril despite his victories. Sadly, Bernie's in quite a pinch, too. =( Let's hope Hillary shapes up a bit, 'cause she's in serious danger of being Trumped this fall.

Out of curiosity, would you conservatives actually vote for Trump over Hillary?

Anyway, here's to hoping the establishment Republicans try to snub Trump as much as possible and cause him to go rogue. It would be so kind of him to split the party in two in November.

Cruz is anywhere from fighter's chance to 'last hope' as the Republican that can beat Trump in my opinion.

As for a Trump-Hillary November.....God, that's a nightmare.

Donald has to prove he's more conservative than Hillary in spades at this point in time. Unlike Mike, I am a very big values voter as opposed to his "tell it like it is" preference. There are a lot of things Trump says that I "agree" with - but very little of those things have policies that are authentic to him -and- are agreeable.

There are things I don't like - such as his preference for neutrality over siding with Israel in the I-P conflict, his inability to talk coherently when someone asks him the "hows" of his policies, his immaculate lack of apology for quotes involving getting physical with his own daughter if she wasn't his daughter, personal attacks against war heroes, the fricken' Pope, former presidents in states where they are liked.

For a values voter - there's a reason Cruz challenges him squarely in that department - the Donald don't walk the walk.

---

On the other hand, Hillary needs to assume the mantel of "General Election" mode right now while finishing off Sanders. If Bernie causes her to drift left, it makes Trump look much much better down the road. Bernie's a big roadblock here - because a strong finish that falls short for Sanders means that Hillary is going to have little to no time in selling herself to conservatives disenchanted with Donald and even if someone like little ole me were to sacrifice a very important election for the Conservative Movement just to keep a clown out of office - it wouldn't matter.

Hillary also has to account for over 2,000 "Secret" e-mails that were found in her own personal server due to an FBI probe and the green light for further investigation.

If Cruz is the GOP Nominee - it's no question, my vote's going to Ted in November.

If Trump is the GOP Nominee, and the nomination goes to Hillary Clinton - as of right now I am leaning toward Hillary. The Republican Party holds no value to me if it doesn't match my values - and throwing up someone WORSE than Hillary is not a way to unify anything. Donald Trump has a lot of ground to cover, bridges to fix, and most of all - he needs to be very authentic to swing me back to the right in this scenario. That's his strong suit - supposedly.

If Trump is the Nominee, and SANDERS is the opponent - I'm moving to Canada.

---

My prediction, as an optimist, is that the GOP gets it's act together and Cruz beats the odds. I don't know if he would beat Hillary yet to make that call - but I think Trump's in for a rude awakening.

[Deleted User]

Ranking all of the Republicans as well as Bernie and Hillary

1. Rand Paul (Far and away favorite)

2. Ted Cruz

3. Marco Rubio (Definitely electable cutoff line)

4. Donald Trump (Not sure if I can bring myself to vote for him or not, I'll vote for him only if it comes down to him vs Hillary)

5. Ben Carson

6. Mike Huckabee

7. John Kasich

8. Scott Walker

9. Carly Fiorina

10. Bernie Sanders

11. Chris Christie

12. Jeb Bush

7Billion. Hillary Clinton

So yes I'd vote for Trump over Hillary.

#AnyoneOverHillary

[NickCrash]

If Trump is the Nominee, and SANDERS is the opponent - I'm moving to Canada.

Ideologically speaking, Sanders is your best bet. You said it yourself. Hillary is a pendulum that sways wherever it's more profitable. Voting against whom you think is a worse choice is much different (and dangerous) than voting for the one whose policies you can actually see implemented. At least he has a social policy that's long due to be implemented in the states, compared to other candidates, who also have a scandal or two. I'll just have to point out that the current Canadian president is more of a leftist than Sanders.

Here Trump states the obvious: If you don't have financial benefit, stay out of it. I'm referring to the american intervention to Israel, which we know will continue as the army is not going to withdraw. Therefore, there's no actual difference.

As I mentioned earlier the democrats need to attack Trump if they want an easy win. Mass psychology is easy to observe where appearances are given more attention than the policies the delegates propose. Right now, Trump is acting both as the "Republican Superstar" and as a "Joke candidate". Only, what remains once he gets the nomination and focuses his campaign into throwing away the jokester attitude and start to appear more reasonable by withdrawing certain absurd comments and suggestions, starting to ask apologies for past events to convince the world he's more mature, and so on? Managing to bring him down mid-game makes Rubio or Cruz (whomever makes a comeback) able to get started. You'll notice that while Trump has already set the basis for the election run, the others seem to be just beginning a campaign that's vague in what it really wants to do. Sure we can position their tendencies on paper, but they are not the focus, thus have not presented their detailed agenda. On the contrary, both Clinton and Sanders have shown what they intend to do, and everybody has full knowledge on where to position them. Running against them, gives the Democrats a huge head start. The campains did not start yesterday of course, but if you complile media coverage, debate positions, political agenda, and tendencies towards other candidates of their own party and the one opposing it (since US only has 2 parties, another fallacy...), you'll see how far behind they are. The point stands.

Trump is electable, just because Hillary is a bad choice. People are going to switch until they decide whom to vote against.

[Eviora]

My "leave the country" candidate would be Cruz. He comes off as a complete zealot and if I think he'd do what he could to ruin the lives of LGBT people. Trump would similarly try to mess up the others of some other demographics. What I will say is that, if you vote for either of them, you're squarely responsible for whatever harm they bring to your friends and family. Hillary may be a complete liar, but at least she's just in it for herself, not trying to smite some of her own citizens.

[Chase]

First of all, Nick - there are no "long overdue social policies" in America that Hillary also doesn't support - so I don't know what you are even talking about here.

Secondly, at the end of the day, while Hillary is much less stable than Bernie, her swaying to the right - while I myself am a Conservative - is much more profitable to ME and MOST Americans than Sanders sticking to the left and trying to pass some legislature that equates to a pipe-dream in this country. People act as if trying to be held accountable to as many Americans as possible and not just the ones that support you or agree with you is a BAD thing when you are President...and -that- is how you get stuck with those who only care about pushing their sides agenda.

Sanders is the farthest person from me on the ideological spectrum. He may be the nicest guy in the field - but his policies are the absolute least agreeable to me - to the point where hedging my bet on Trump is more attractive than if Trump were running against Clinton.

Ideally, and yes, you are free to disagree, I believe Cruz is the best option left for this country. The "friends and family" whose lives would be ruined first and foremost by a Cruz presidency are lessened to a select few if Cruz even is able to do something that has yet to happen - overturn one of the critical progressive Supreme Court cases in civil rights history.

He -has- said some incindiary things against the LGBT community that I don't agree with - but Trump says incendiary things against Muslims, Mexicans, Women, and people he just outright doesn't like.

In the situation that it IS indeed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in November, Nick - there is no other option unless the Republicans do split up to the point where an Anti-Trump conservative runs Third-Party. It's picking the lesser evil and it's unavoidable.

[Eviora]

How many lives is an ideology worth? We're not just talking about Cruz overturning the recent marriage equality decision. He could spread discrimination into many aspects of life in this country, and particularly could make life a living hell for a lot of transgender people, who don't yet have many of the protections extended to the LGB community. And before you claim that's far-fetched, let me remind you that he spoke at a conference held by a pastor who believes gay people should be killed. If the man you voted for pushes laws that lead to suicides or worse, will you try to wash your hands of it and say "Not my problem?" Or will you own your role in those deaths? Is doing so really a lesser evil than electing a selfish woman who will support some socialistic legislation you disagree with?

I fully expect people to be upset with me for making this dark. But I'm not sorry. Follow your positions all the way to their plausible logical conclusions, even if you don't like them.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Eviora

[Deleted User]

How many lives is an ideology worth? We're not just talking about Cruz overturning the recent marriage equality decision. He could spread discrimination into many aspects of life in this country, and particularly could make life a living hell for a lot of transgender people, who don't yet have many of the protections extended to the LGB community. And before you claim that's far-fetched, let me remind you that he spoke at a conference held by a pastor who believes gay people should be killed. If the man you voted for pushes laws that lead to suicides or worse, will you try to wash your hands of it and say "Not my problem?" Or will you own your role in those deaths? Is doing so really a lesser evil than electing a selfish woman who will support some socialistic legislation you disagree with?

I fully expect people to be upset with me for making this dark. But I'm not sorry. Follow your positions all the way to their plausible logical conclusions, even if you don't like them.

The supreme court had no right to make that decision. It is NO WHERE specified in the constitution whether or not same sex marriage is or is not allowed, therefore it is in fact left for the states to decide. That said, I would support a prospective amendment that would enable same sex marriage, which would in turn allow it. The problem I take with the progressive left, as well as much of the conservative right is that they feel they have the right to force their viewpoints on all. The majority of morality points in the election are as such, not specified in the constitution and should be left to the states.

Why do I support Cruz? Because I'm tired of the 'bipartisanship' in Washington in which it's all take take take take by the progressive left, and any time conservatives try to hold any ground on any issue and not just give in to the left, the media paints conservatives as these heinous beings and many REPUBLICANS give in. (Republican =/= conservative anymore) I myself am agnostic, but I support Cruz despite his religious beliefs. I'm tired of this one way bipartisanship which has been going on for the past 10 years. Cruz has and will stand his ground and say enough is enough.

[Eviora]

Sure the Supreme Court had the right to make that decision. Take a particular man. Allowing women to marry him but not allowing men to is sexism. I believe a conservative judge was the deciding vote. Especially on these social issues, conservatives are overturned again and again because they are morally wrong. That sort of discrimination is painted as heinous because it is. As a society, we are starting to realize this. Cruz might be able to put a bump in the road, but the trend will continue nonetheless. He would just be messing up thousands of lives along the way. How pointless.

But you didn't answer my questions, Jericho. How many lives is your ideology worth?

[Deleted User]

That's not even my ideology, it's how this country is. The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court DOES NOT WRITE LEGISLATURE.

You're for abortion. How many lives is YOUR ideology worth?

[NickCrash]

Alright, I'll have to clarify. Supporting an opinion proposed by another candidate, in the last minute, only in a desperate attempt to "steal" voters from them, but providing no further explanation (oral or written) on its establishment is mere pretending, especially when the other side has already done it and presented examples of it here and there. So far, Clinton's speeches include a mandatory "I'm pro socialistic legislation" with no examples of actually enforcing it.

We may disagree ideologically, and what I see as profitable investment (long-term) seems pipe-dream to you, but we can both agree on the following. A person who has no real ideological basis cannot be considered a serious candidate. Of course, they will turn to their voter base, but their position requires they create an environment profitable for all. A president can fall when the people are dissatisfied, even if the media back them up, long before they even receive the party's nomination. Also, if someone is constantly verbally assaulting ethnic groups that belong to minorities, the support votes are ones that will follow the candidate until he says something offensive for their group/ethnicity/social status/etc. It's not a steady voter-base, just one that agrees with certain "hate policies", as I like to call them.

At this point I believe Sanders is the most suitable candidate because he is steady and his ideas are the ones I can agree with, at least more than the other two, who sway from right to left (or right to far right) and back. I regard them as idiots and dangerous respectively, and even if I live across the Atlantic (which means I can see this whole thing from a different point of view than the average American), this election will affect me, given your country's external policy.

In the situation that it IS indeed Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in November, Nick - there is no other option unless the Republicans do split up to the point where an Anti-Trump conservative runs Third-Party. It's picking the lesser evil and it's unavoidable.

That's an inherent flaw of the elective system. The absense of multiple parties allows sponsorship and inclined media coverage, thus indirect effect on the masses without clarity. A good part is the debate system, in which people from a seemingly common background are supposed to compare their suggestions and future plans both short-term and long-term. However, it's not enough, because (if we disregard the (already high) probability of it getting rigged) the way this voting system works, the smaller states have "stronger votes" than the bigger ones, thus a candidate may gain fast majority by supporting certain areas (eg by being a citizen of that area) and not even care about others. This in the end leads to a minority parliament. You can see that this relates to our topic by checking whom each candidate appeals to. Yes, Trump (for example) hates everyone, and focuses on certain classes of people, while Cruz, even if less appreciated, is still there because he chose the 'correct' groups to support.

edit for Jericho:

That's not even my ideology, it's how this country is. The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court DOES NOT WRITE LEGISLATURE.

You're for abortion. How many lives is YOUR ideology worth?

The constitution needs to clear at what it defines and prohibits. Whatever is not restricted by the constitution and laws (in your case defined by each state) is allowed, and should be respected.

Since abortion is a hot topic, I'll answer this even if it wasn't a question aimed at me.

When a life is unwanted before birth, it will be afterwards as well. Abortion stems from the inability to raise an infant, and dropping it to the nearest institution is a similar way of getting rid of it. While it may be a pity to kill a person, since humans are species of high thinking potential (taking a look at it from an evolutionary point of view), the changes in the mother's physical and mental state, as well as her future obligation in the upbringing of the child (hormones make it extremely difficult to take it away once it's born - thus leading to depression when there's no feedback) can cause harm, avoidable by the choice of abortion. Even if we simplify this, one has the right to choose what they do with their bodies. From an embryological point of view, the early period in which abortion is even probable, the embryo is not a "human" life form, since it more resembles a parasite than a baby (heart not pounding, appearance of a fish/lizard, undefined gender, skin and brain are still interconnected etc), so there go the religious arguments on it. I believe that a forcing "pro-life" legislation is forcing multiple choices on all people involved, thus indirectly denying them the right of freedom of choice.

[Eviora]

The supreme court didn't write legislature. And the belief that the Constitution should be interpreted strictly based on the written word is most certainly part of an ideology.

My ideology is worth no lives at all - at least, none that are indisputably human.I do value human life more than other life, I'm afraid. That said, I would prefer to avoid inflicting a painful death on any create - or, even worse, a painful life. By the way, that goes for myself, too - I'd rather die than live in misery. Strictly speaking, my metric for morality is human well-being rather than life for the sake of life. While I *do* think it's wrong for people to be having abortions all willy-nilly when they could have used protection, sometimes things go wrong, and I think it's far more harmful to bring a child into the world only to neglect them or worse. In terms of law, the reality is that people who really don't want children can find ways to be rid of them whether abortion is legal or not. Better for the deed to be done by a professional who can ensure minimal suffering. To the extent that some suffer anyway... well, that's on me to the same extent that it's on Hillary, or whomever I vote for who would be supporting pro-choice legislation. On the flip side, conservatives who oppose abortion are responsible for the pain endured by mothers and by children abandoned because they were not wanted. Abortion is an issue I can empathize with conservatives on, even if I disagree. Regardless of which path you choose, you end up with a lot of weight on your shoulders.

Discrimination is not nearly as difficult a topic, especially in the case of same-sex marriage. Allowing two men or two women to be married doesn't hurt anyone at all as far as I can see. You can try to bring your religion into the issue, but really, I can make up all sorts of religions that would require me to do things I'm not allowed to do. if you're religious, it's your own job to see to it that you fulfill your "divine mandate" or whatever. The government doesn't have to make it legal if it hurts someone else.

Incidentally, Jericho, you still haven't answered my question. I hope you don't decide to close the topic or something just to avoid it. =p

[Chase]

Eviora - human fetuses ARE human - and there are more abortions had in this country than there are LGBT people that kill themselves or are killed at the hands of others - but you know, let's just defend the lives that have a voice and can vote. #LibLogic.

I don't want this to get any uglier than that - this is about the primary races - so most topics, such as LGBT protection, Abortion, and yes, even the prospective General Election are still off-topic.

To bookend this spat - I'll answer Eviora's question.

I think if the Liberals are allowed to undermine the humanity of children before they even see the light of day, livelihood arguments are off-the-table. It's an impasse.

Secondly, if the cases involved are suicides, I'm not nearly as sympathetic as one may like. I understand that orientation-shaming and transitioning people are forced into brinksmanship by others - and I personally as a Conservative differ by wanting to assist the plight transgendered individuals face - but not at the cost of poor economic and healthcare handling, poor foreign policy in which we neglect our allies and arm those who terrorize the world, someone who would care about votes over things like our local police officers who don't know if they are going to see their families by safely going off shift, and so on and so forth.

Donald Trump puts at risk the most lives - especially if he's bullshitting the people voting for him and is actually Pro-Choice.

Hillary being Pro-choice and having a horrid foreign policy record endangers lives.

Ted Cruz may have said and may hold personal intentions against the LGBT community, but the way I see it, he's saving more lives than he's endangering.

The only difference is - you will value the lives most identifiable to your own. I'm prepared to take that loss because looking at the Global Stage, every candidate - even Bernie - is a lot worse.