Hacker News Reader

Comment by CamperBob2 | Hacker News Reader

Long-shot speculation: I wonder if the Democrats have decided that Hillary is going to lose against Trump. Maybe they, and not the GOP, are throwing her under a very fast bus.

Does anyone know what happens in the unlikely event that Clinton is placed under indictment before the election? Does Kaine move up the ticket? Does the DNC pick someone else entirely? What options do the electors have?

View on HN

>. Each party has its own protocol for this scenario, but in neither case does the running mate automatically take over the ticket. If John McCain were to die before the election, the rules of the Republican Party authorize the Republican National Committee to fill the vacancy, either by reconvening a national convention or by having RNC state representatives vote. The new nominee must receive a majority vote to officially become the party candidate. If Barack Obama were to die before the election, the Democratic Party's charter and bylaws state that responsibility for filling that vacancy would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify how exactly the DNC would go about doing that. (Congress could also pass a special statute and push back Election Day, giving the dead candidate's party time to regroup.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

I was getting ready to point out that Hillary really has a large lead, even if the day-to-day talking heads insist on making this and every race/issue seem as if it is 50/50 split. Then I checked 538.com [1]: they have her at 60% chance of winning -- pretty strong lead and hardly a normal time to throw someone under the bus -- but those graphs should be terrifying team Hillary.

[1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Don't use that site for any insight. Nate Silver had Trump at a "1%" chance of winning the GOP primaries. He then admitted that he got the call wrong because he really didn't have any models and was just spitballing with friends. His accuracy in the previous general election was based on the fact that he had visibility into private polling (WAY more accurate) and other forecasters didn't.

He did have models, and they correctly predicted Trump's victory. He chose to disregard them. Then he wrote a mea culpa article explaining his mistake, which he is unlikely to repeat.

> His accuracy in the previous general election was based on the fact that he had visibility into private polling (WAY more accurate) and other forecasters didn't.

Where did you hear that? I'm not doubting you I'm just interested because I've never heard this before. My understanding was that he was so accurate last time around because the election followed normal patterns and his math was just better than everyone else's gut.

> he had visibility into private polling

Could you elaborate? Is "private polling" the same as "internal polling," which is done by the campaigns? If so, my understanding was that the Romney camp's internal polls in 2012 turned out to be extremely inaccurate.

My preferred stats site has firmly switched to Tannenbaum (of Minix) and http://www.electoral-vote.com - 538 has felt more like horse racing for ESPN this past cycle than statistical analysis and news items.

60% chance is not really much different from a coin flip. Plus they might have some inside info that the public hasn't had a chance to react to yet.

The reason I'm worried is that it's becoming increasingly clear why the GOP was so enthusiastic about blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. That never made any sense, except in a bizarro world where they were very sure they weren't going to lose the Presidency.

Nate Silver has been wrong at every single juncture, as have the rest of the polls. We're off the beaten path and down the rabbit hole, and now we're staring at a trap door in a dark sub-basement that even the rabbit didn't know was there.

It also makes sense if you don't assume that GOP is a monolithic hivemind.

Every politician ultimately wants to gain a position of power, and remain in it. Aligning themselves with a party lets them tap into that party's electorate, but said electorate also expects them to hold to certain opinions, and perform certain token rituals to demonstrate that - so they do that. It doesn't even matter that the long-term end result would be detrimental to the party in this case - what matters is that a GOP politician who'd publicly reject the block would lose a lot of votes in their next election.

And because US only has single-member districts, not party lists, this mode of thinking dominates, and can destroy the party from the inside.

It also makes sense if you don't assume that GOP is a monolithic hivemind.

Historically, though, that's exactly what they are. Party discipline usually prevails over everything else with those guys.

The only person that's had a pretty good batting average on this election so far is Scott Adams - it's downright eerie the way he's called it almost since this time last year.

>The reason I'm worried is that it's becoming increasingly clear why the GOP was so enthusiastic about blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. That never made any sense, except in a bizarro world where they were very sure they weren't going to lose the Presidency.

How does that not make sense? They've been blocking everything they can since they got the majority.

Because if a Democrat is elected, they'll end up dealing with nominees that are even less to their liking.

Same thing that will happen with Trump although whatever that is isn't very clear. Though, I think it's a long shot that you indite clinton over this. She should be insulated. Trump, on the other hand, has been indited for TrumpU

National security issues brought into question vs. possible scam.

Different issues. One disqualifies handling of sensitive info and public records, the other, trust in being ethical.

More relevantly, both disqualifying.

There's no qualification to be POTUS other than your age and whether you were born American.

well there are other laws (eg violations of certain statutes that some accuse clinton of breeching) but there is no per se morality test in terms of ideas. The latter is a fundamental pillar of separation of powers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com