US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

What is pathetic is that somehow, a guy that has served in the House for a long while and is now a Senator, holds positions that the majority of Americans find appealing... being able to out poll Trump in a General Election is regarded as an accomplishment.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

But Obama's jackbooted thugs will derail those investigations the same way that they've hidden the truth from all the previous ones. The ironic thing about Benghazi is that, while it could derail Clinton's presidential bid, the only way for the facts about it to get out would be to have Clinton lose the presidential election and then President Trump can free the investigators from the elitist liberal chains that are currently binding them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Trying to remember how that $5.6 trillion surplus turned into a couple trillion in debt, thousands of dead soldiers looking for threats that never existed, trying to install the Tailor of Baghdad as the President, giving up on an occupation and handing the keys over to warlords in order to invade another nation, and starting a program that would be the most egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, thing worked out.

 

[ksen]

Clinton has about a 40 point lead over Sanders for the Dem nomination.

And how much of that spread is due to people not wanting to vote Sanders because "he can't win the general?"

I suspect quite a bit of it. But that might be wishful thinking.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Clinton has about a 40 point lead over Sanders for the Dem nomination.

And how much of that spread is due to people not wanting to vote Sanders because "he can't win the general?"

I suspect quite a bit of it. But that might be wishful thinking.

I think a lot of that spread is due to people thinking "He's not Hillary Clinton". That seems to me to be the major impediment to his getting the nomination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And how much of that spread is due to people not wanting to vote Sanders because "he can't win the general?"

I suspect quite a bit of it. But that might be wishful thinking.

I think a lot of that spread is due to people thinking "He's not Hillary Clinton". That seems to me to be the major impediment to his getting the nomination.

Right now he is suffering most from name recognition. Then he suffers from the "socialist" label. It will be interesting to see if he can become a serious candidate in the polls. Regardless, I think he is the other side of the pendulum for the other person that may take out Clinton in '16.

Clinton had it in the bag in '08. She has it in the bag in '16.

 

[arkirk]

And how much of that spread is due to people not wanting to vote Sanders because "he can't win the general?"

I suspect quite a bit of it. But that might be wishful thinking.

I think a lot of that spread is due to people thinking "He's not Hillary Clinton". That seems to me to be the major impediment to his getting the nomination.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has the problem of being stiff and unreal. Her announcements of policy are always after years of resistance to the changes she is making when she realizes she cannot win with the limited support she has. As her agend moves into more environmental territory, she offends would be recontributors to her election run. She really is a bit of a deer in the headlights...always responding too late or not at all...no model of an effective president.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think a lot of that spread is due to people thinking "He's not Hillary Clinton". That seems to me to be the major impediment to his getting the nomination.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has the problem of being stiff and unreal. Her announcements of policy are always after years of resistance to the changes she is making when she realizes she cannot win with the limited support she has. As her agend moves into more environmental territory, she offends would be recontributors to her election run. She really is a bit of a deer in the headlights...always responding too late or not at all...no model of an effective president.

Well then, you people are screwed because you're going to have her as a President for the next eight years.

 

[ksen]

The Hillary Clinton campaign has the problem of being stiff and unreal. Her announcements of policy are always after years of resistance to the changes she is making when she realizes she cannot win with the limited support she has. As her agend moves into more environmental territory, she offends would be recontributors to her election run. She really is a bit of a deer in the headlights...always responding too late or not at all...no model of an effective president.

Well then, you people are screwed because you're going to have her as a President for the next eight years.

That's what people were saying around this time in 2007.

 

[arkirk]

Well then, you people are screwed because you're going to have her as a President for the next eight years.

That's what people were saying around this time in 2007.

Don't let Tom get you upset. He's not from around here.

 

[ksen]

I AM NOT UPSET!!!!!!!

 

[angelo]

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

Trying to remember how that $5.6 trillion surplus turned into a couple trillion in debt, thousands of dead soldiers looking for threats that never existed, trying to install the Tailor of Baghdad as the President, giving up on an occupation and handing the keys over to warlords in order to invade another nation, and starting a program that would be the most egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, thing worked out.

No doubt about it. The invasion and subsequent fall of Saddam Hussein will go into the history books as the worst decision ever made by a US administration. But the decision wasn't opposed by the Democrats at the time.

 

[bilby]

Trying to remember how that $5.6 trillion surplus turned into a couple trillion in debt, thousands of dead soldiers looking for threats that never existed, trying to install the Tailor of Baghdad as the President, giving up on an occupation and handing the keys over to warlords in order to invade another nation, and starting a program that would be the most egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, thing worked out.

No doubt about it. The invasion and subsequent fall of Saddam Hussein will go into the history books as the worst decision ever made by a US administration. But the decision wasn't opposed by the Democrats at the time.

That's a bit hyperbolic; What about the decision to support South Vietnam against the North, or the decision to remain neutral in WWII (until attacked by Japan); I would say that both of those are arguably worse decisions than the decision to invade Iraq.

 

[angelo]

While the US was neutral in WW2 it was keeping Britain afloat against the might of the German forces by supplying arms and other much needed goods. Had it not been for the US, Britain would have fallen by the time the U S joined the fight against the Axis powers.

 

[bigfield]

While the US was neutral in WW2 it was keeping Britain afloat against the might of the German forces by supplying arms and other much needed goods. Had it not been for the US, Britain would have fallen by the time the U S joined the fight against the Axis powers.

When the Lend-Lease policy came into effect in 1941, the US was no longer neutral, so it doesn't count.

Bilby is likely referring to the period before 1941. An American alliance with Britain and France prior to 1939 would have convinced the German High Command that they did not have the military might to prosecute a war in Europe.

As it was, they were forced to commence in 1939 because they were convinced that French and British rearmament would overtake Germany by the early 40's. A combined British-French-American alliance would have been the dominant power.

By choosing to remain neutral until 1941, the US missed an opportunity to save millions of lives and avoid massive economic losses. That is fuck-up rivalled only by the likes of the Great Leap Forward in China.

 

[bilby]

While the US was neutral in WW2 it was keeping Britain afloat against the might of the German forces by supplying arms and other much needed goods. Had it not been for the US, Britain would have fallen by the time the U S joined the fight against the Axis powers.

And had the US declared war on Germany in 1939, Hitler could have been crushed like a bug before France was even invaded. The support given by the US to Britain in the period between the British declaration of war in 1939 and the bombing of Pearl Harbour some two years later just serves to highlight that the US knew Hitler was bad news, and to make the decision to remain neutral even less good.

Your response doesn't support your contention that invading Iraq was "the worst decision ever made by a US administration"; if anything it highlights just how wrong you are.

 

[RavenSky]

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?

This is where, much as James Brown notes, money factors in. I don't think the poll numbers at this point for the Republican candidates actually indicate who their voters are interested in hearing from. The numbers reflect who has the largest name recognition and/or the largest pockets for advertising.

Moreover, just in the interest of fairness in elections (I know... expecting fairness from Republicans) they really need to allow every candidate equal time in the debates.

There are 17 candidates running. Have two-part debates with the candidates in each chosen at random. As the field narrows when candidates drop out, then consolidate to one debate.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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?

This is where, much as James Brown notes, money factors in. I don't think the poll numbers at this point for the Republican candidates actually indicate who their voters are interested in hearing from. The numbers reflect who has the largest name recognition and/or the largest pockets for advertising.

Moreover, just in the interest of fairness in elections (I know... expecting fairness from Republicans) they really need to allow every candidate equal time in the debates.

There are 17 candidates running. Have two-part debates with the candidates in each chosen at random. As the field narrows when candidates drop out, then consolidate to one debate.

Name recognition and large pockets for advertising are, for better or worse, key aspects to winning an election campaign. If you can't get people to care who you are, there's less cause for your taking up the time where the people who have done that can explain their positions to the voters.

While I don't expect much from a GOP debate, it would be better to have a few candidates who've proven their viability and can spend time actually discussing topics than it would to have a bunch of non-viable ones up there who's only goal in the debate is to get in one soundbite that'll get him some later airplay. If you want to have an undercard debate where the second tier can waste time trading zingers in the hopes that they'll get five seconds in the news cycle for one of them, then fine. Don't derail the mian debate with that, though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trying to remember how that $5.6 trillion surplus turned into a couple trillion in debt, thousands of dead soldiers looking for threats that never existed, trying to install the Tailor of Baghdad as the President, giving up on an occupation and handing the keys over to warlords in order to invade another nation, and starting a program that would be the most egregious violation of the 4th Amendment, thing worked out.

No doubt about it. The invasion and subsequent fall of Saddam Hussein will go into the history books as the worst decision ever made by a US administration. But the decision wasn't opposed by the Democrats at the time.

You must be from out of town. Slavery, the relocation of the Native Americans, prohibition, many many bad ideas.

The decision to invade Iraq was opposed by many Democrats. It wasn't opposed by other Democrats.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Self-edited edited to delete content that was derailing the conversation.

Anyway, it looks like Trump is setting up to drop out of the race soon. This return the election to some degree of normality. But hopefully he draws this thing out until the new year, so that he can continue to fracture the GOP into the Tea Party, the dip shits who would currently vote for Trump, the religious right, and the tiny number of conservative intellectuals (yes, they do actually exist). Conservatives won't know who to vote for come election day--besides Just Not Hillary. And most of them will rally behind whomever the GOP nominates, but there will be a significant number who will cast a third party vote. This, along with the further alienation of the Hispanic vote, should be enough for Hillary to stroll into the White House.