US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[angelo]

Or perhaps the cleaning lady!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Or perhaps the cleaning lady!

If you mean cleaning up the corruption, waste and mismanagement which plagues the Washington political process, then yes, she is the lady you want.

Clinton 2016. It's Your Time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, seen from abroad the question sometime is "would have Bill been successful without her"? It sometimes looked like she was the driver in the couple, and just put Bill in front because the US was not ready for a woman in charge yet.

Oh, come on. We already had Nancy Reagan, and her astrologer, running the country.

 

[bleubird]

Huckabee trumps Trump.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Up...ran-deal-to-Holocaust.-Obama-s-response-video
Who's next?

 

[Sarpedon]

And now former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore is running, for Christ's sake!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?5763-Australian-Politics-derail-from-US-President-2016

 

[ksen]

Looks like Perry is getting desperate.

Rick Perry Just Rolled Out a Surprisingly Progressive Agenda on Wall Street Regulation

 

[4321lynx]

Not a reply to anyone here, but merely a question to all.

What do you think of Fox News' method of choosing the number, and method of deciding who to include in that number, for the Republican party's candidates debate? Does being excluded from that number really , in practical terms,mean the end of the hopes of the excluded candidates?

(OK, I lost count after one, I see those are two questions.)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not a reply to anyone here, but merely a question to all.

What do you think of Fox News' method of choosing the number, and method of deciding who to include in that number, for the Republican party's candidates debate? Does being excluded from that number really , in practical terms,mean the end of the hopes of the excluded candidates?

(OK, I lost count after one, I see those are two questions.)

Well, it's pointless to have a debate with 20 people on the stage, so they need some sort of cutoff to limit the number of participants to the leaders. Polls are really the only way to do that despite all of the inherent limitations involved with using these polls.

It would be worse for them to just pick a few whom they think voters would want to hear from and choose the selection that way. The polls are the least bad of all the bad options available to them.

 

[James Brown]

I think it's an excellent way for Fox to generate revenue. Lower-tier candidates know that they have a better chance of winning the primary if they're on the debate. They also know that they have to poll above a certain level to get into the debate. And the best way to increase their ranking in the polls is with advertising. And so candidates have an incentive to throw lots of money at Fox.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is reportedly purchasing $250,000 of advertising time on Fox News in an attempt to help secure a place at the network's August 6 debate. Christie's ad buy is more evidence that Fox News' debate -- the first of the presidential cycle -- is proving lucrative for the network.

I expect the execs at other networks are seething over the fact that they haven't cultivated a close, intimate relationship with the Republican National Committee.

 

[laughing dog]

Not a reply to anyone here, but merely a question to all.

What do you think of Fox News' method of choosing the number, and method of deciding who to include in that number, for the Republican party's candidates debate? Does being excluded from that number really , in practical terms,mean the end of the hopes of the excluded candidates?

(OK, I lost count after one, I see those are two questions.)

Well, it's pointless to have a debate with 20 people on the stage, so they need some sort of cutoff to limit the number of participants to the leaders. Polls are really the only way to do that despite all of the inherent limitations involved with using these polls.

It would be worse for them to just pick a few whom they think voters would want to hear from and choose the selection that way. The polls are the least bad of all the bad options available to them.

If Fox was truly interested in allowing the public to see this collection of clowns in action, they could host a series of "debates" over a couple of weeks with 5 to 10 candidates picked at random.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, it's pointless to have a debate with 20 people on the stage, so they need some sort of cutoff to limit the number of participants to the leaders. Polls are really the only way to do that despite all of the inherent limitations involved with using these polls.

It would be worse for them to just pick a few whom they think voters would want to hear from and choose the selection that way. The polls are the least bad of all the bad options available to them.

If Fox was truly interested in allowing the public to see this collection of clowns in action, they could host a series of "debates" over a couple of weeks with 5 to 10 candidates picked at random.

It could be argued that all 20 could be on stage at once. After all, this isn't a debate. The moderator pretty much can say simple things like "Immigration reform, tell us what we want to hear, Senator Graham." or "Sen Paul, the Iran agreement, how is Obama going to be the death nail to the US?"

Otherwise, a series of "debates" changing up the candidates should be quite possible. Two or three nightly debates in a row, 6 to 8 candidates. Should would fine.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If Fox was truly interested in allowing the public to see this collection of clowns in action, they could host a series of "debates" over a couple of weeks with 5 to 10 candidates picked at random.

It could be argued that all 20 could be on stage at once. After all, this isn't a debate. The moderator pretty much can say simple things like "Immigration reform, tell us what we want to hear, Senator Graham." or "Sen Paul, the Iran agreement, how is Obama going to be the death nail to the US?"

Otherwise, a series of "debates" changing up the candidates should be quite possible. Two or three nightly debates in a row, 6 to 8 candidates. Should would fine.

But that makes the assumption that every one of them is a legitimate candidate with a shot at winning. If they can't demonstrate that they have a base level of support, why put them on the main stage? IIRC, the cutoff level is around 4-5%. If someone's candidacy is so uninteresting to the voters that they can't generate even that, then why bother to have them there taking time away from the candidates that the voters have indicated they're interested in hearing from?

 

[ksen]

Sanders may be about to lose the "unelectable" tag.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl.../249677-sanders-beats-trump-by-20-plus-points

A poll recently released by CNN/ORC found Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) walloping Donald Trump by about 20 points, beating Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) and running in a statistical tie against former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.).

If democrats start believing Sanders could win the general I can see even more starting to support him since so often we vote for who we think can win instead of who we truly would like to vote for.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sanders may be about to lose the "unelectable" tag.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl.../249677-sanders-beats-trump-by-20-plus-points

A poll recently released by CNN/ORC found Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) walloping Donald Trump by about 20 points, beating Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) and running in a statistical tie against former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.).

If democrats start believing Sanders could win the general I can see even more starting to support him since so often we vote for who we think can win instead of who we truly would like to vote for.

I think that if the Dems ran a pedophilic serial killer, he'd have a wide margin over Donald Trump and be at least tied with anyone else, so that's not saying much.

Bill Clinton is ineligible to run, though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It could be argued that all 20 could be on stage at once. After all, this isn't a debate. The moderator pretty much can say simple things like "Immigration reform, tell us what we want to hear, Senator Graham." or "Sen Paul, the Iran agreement, how is Obama going to be the death nail to the US?"

Otherwise, a series of "debates" changing up the candidates should be quite possible. Two or three nightly debates in a row, 6 to 8 candidates. Should would fine.

But that makes the assumption that every one of them is a legitimate candidate with a shot at winning. If they can't demonstrate that they have a base level of support, why put them on the main stage? IIRC, the cutoff level is around 4-5%. If someone's candidacy is so uninteresting to the voters that they can't generate even that, then why bother to have them there taking time away from the candidates that the voters have indicated they're interested in hearing from?

Almost no one in this pool of idiots is electable. The most unelectable is polling near 20 or 25% against the other Republicans!

With 16 or so in the clown car, someone polling 3% is still on the radar. We are talking the opening volleys in the primaries. Makes sense to give everyone a voice to start and whittle down from there.

 

[ksen]

Sanders may be about to lose the "unelectable" tag.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl.../249677-sanders-beats-trump-by-20-plus-points



If democrats start believing Sanders could win the general I can see even more starting to support him since so often we vote for who we think can win instead of who we truly would like to vote for.

I think that if the Dems ran a pedophilic serial killer, he'd have a wide margin over Donald Trump and be at least tied with anyone else, so that's not saying much.

Bill Clinton is ineligible to run, though.

Trump isn't the only one he's listed as being able to beat.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that if the Dems ran a pedophilic serial killer, he'd have a wide margin over Donald Trump and be at least tied with anyone else, so that's not saying much.

Bill Clinton is ineligible to run, though.

Trump isn't the only one he's listed as being able to beat.

Well, if only my post had specifically said that. Oh wait, it did.

Clinton has about a 40 point lead over Sanders for the Dem nomination. It's not actually a race anymore than Ron Paul's candidacy was the last time around, no matter how loudly the bootheads clamoured about how he was all set to surge.

She learned a lot from her failed campaign against Obama and short of her eating somebody over the next few months, the win is a lock for her. If she does eat somebody, it would depend largely on who it is that she eats.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump isn't the only one he's listed as being able to beat.

Well, if only my post had specifically said that. Oh wait, it did.

Clinton has about a 40 point lead over Sanders for the Dem nomination. It's not actually a race anymore than Ron Paul's candidacy was the last time around, no matter how loudly the bootheads clamoured about how he was all set to surge.

She learned a lot from her failed campaign against Obama and short of her eating somebody over the next few months, the win is a lock for her. If she does eat somebody, it would depend largely on who it is that she eats.

I don't know. There will be four or five more investigations into Benghazi by the election. One of those is destined to uncover a PDB indicating a direct threat to the Americans. You know how the right-wing is with ignoring threats.

 

[arkirk]

Perhaps a clown couldn't do any worst in running the country?

This post was a clear indication you have no idea what the word worst means.