2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The question is how Trump will play with the Religious right.

I agree that if Trump is the nominee then Utah will most likely still vote R, but it'll be fascinating to see how the all powerful mormon church deal with it. I would expect a lot of mormon voters to stay home.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Right now during the primary process each parties candidates battle it out among themselves.

Its after the candidates are picked that the campaigning between the parties begins. At that point Trump's record will come under far more scrutiny. The casinos and the Chapter 11 bankruptcies will be fair game. But there's no way the democrats will show their hand yet, all that waits until after the candidates have been decided.

It won't stick. His 11 billion dollars speaks for itself. Unless they have something to show he made his money illegally or unethically his business record is nothing but positive for voters.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

The question is how Trump will play with the Religious right.

I agree that if Trump is the nominee then Utah will most likely still vote R, but it'll be fascinating to see how the all powerful mormon church deal with it. I would expect a lot of mormon voters to stay home.

He seems to be willing to throw Iowa knowing that candidates sometimes go too far right to win Iowa and suffer from then on.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Gay Marriage? The Supreme Court decided that last year. Is that even an election issue?

Colonialboy

InTheTrees wrote: »

Right now during the primary process each parties candidates battle it out among themselves.
Its after the candidates are picked that the campaigning between the parties begins. At that point Trump's record will come under far more scrutiny. The casinos and the Chapter 11 bankruptcies will be fair game.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Most politicians are trained lawyers. They're law makers, thats why we elect them. The Clinton's are both highly trained lawyers.

Defending oneself against legal attack by using the law in the most efficient way possible is what you would expect them to do.

So if a Clinton uses the 'law' then it demonstrates they are just being good lawyers and demonstrating how electable they are.

If Trump uses the law (Chapter 11) then we need some scrutiny.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Gay Marriage? The Supreme Court decided that last year. Is that even an election issue?

3 supreme court justices will probably appointed in the next presidency so people will be looking for someone who's going to overturn that disgraceful bit of executive overreach. Supreme court is a joke. Gov. Greg Abbott looks like someone who would make a great presidential candidate.

InTheTrees

Colonialboy wrote: »

So if a Clinton uses the 'law' then it demonstrates they are just being good lawyers and demonstrating how electable they are.

If Trump uses the law (Chapter 11) then we need some scrutiny.

I think that 25 years of fruitless investigations most certainly qualify as scrutiny.

Why should trump think that he can avoid it?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think that 25 years of fruitless investigations most certainly qualify as scrutiny.

Why should trump think that he can avoid it?

Do you actually not believe the rape allegations against Bill Clinton? That 3 women independent of each other who had no incentive to make it up accused him of rape?

Do you also believe that Christopher Hitchens perjured himself in a sworn affidavit when he recounted a lunch meeting with friend of the Clintons Sidney Blumenthal in which he was told there was a smear campaign against Willey?

Do you believe that Willey was lying when she told of her tyres being slashed, mysterious disappearance of pets and strange phonecalls making threats against her children by name?

If you don't believe these allegations please say so, but don't hide behind the term "fruitless investigations" as if that equates to "false allegations".

FactCheck

InTheTrees wrote: »

Really? You think the Mormon Church will endorse him? I suppose they might but it would certainly be fascinating to watch. The Mormons take their religion pretty seriously though.

The LDS church is awfully gunshy about politics these days, having been massively burned by the backlash against the money they invested in fighting Prop 8 in 2008. In the seven years since then, they've actually shifted position enormously.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/27/us/mormon-church-lgbt-laws/

Convening a rare press conference on Tuesday at church headquarters in Salt Lake City, Mormon leaders pledged to support anti-discrimination laws for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, as long the laws also protect the rights of religious groups.

In exchange, the Mormon church wants gay rights advocates -- and the government -- to back off.

Having said that, they came out incredibly hard for Romney in 2012. But he was the first (and only likely one for some time) credible LDS candidate for President and so their support for him is more of a high-water mark than an indication of how prominently they want to inject themselves into politics going forward.

Culture war soundbite politics has not treated them kindly in the last decade. Mormons care a lot about how others perceive them, largely due to their significant religious obligation to be missionaries. Most young men (and nowadays many young women) spend two years away from home bothering people er, winning souls for Christ. So when public opinion of the church is poor, they hear a LOT about it. They feel it.

Trump's tactics are exactly the sort of thing that has burned them so badly and so I really doubt they will come out swinging for him should he win the nomination. I think a lukewarm, low-key endorsement is the likeliest outcome. There would be more enthusiasm for Rubio or Cruz.

But it's an incredibly safe red state and only worth 6 electors so none of the above really matters much

[I hope the glaring generalisations above about Mormons don't offend anyone, For what it's worth I spend a lot of time on business in Utah and I love (most of!) it there. The LDS faith is pretty wacky theologically speaking, but actual ordinary Mormons are by and large incredibly nice people.]

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thargor

I read a loads of US media daily, mainstream and blogs plus news aggregators and a bit of Reddit as well as chatting to American colleagues all the time about the race while we wait for slow software changes to go through and I hear absolutely nothing about Bill Clinton being a serial rapist like 2-3 users here are making him out to be for the last couple of days, is it really a thing?

First Up

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Utah has 6 Electoral College Votes. California has 55.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

3 supreme court justices will probably appointed in the next presidency so people will be looking for someone who's going to overturn that disgraceful bit of executive overreach. Supreme court is a joke. Gov. Greg Abbott looks like someone who would make a great presidential candidate.

What executive overreach are you referring to?

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

What executive overreach are you referring to?

Meant to say judicial

Overheal

Was it a judicial overreach? I haven't read the Justice decisions/opinions but what generally speaking, or specifically, was the overreach?

Before actually securing the nomination Romney consistently beat Obama in the polls. Once he was confirmed that changed sharp-ish. Other than a couple of old-school pollsters and the utterly delusional wing of the Republicans it was obvious he had no chance.

The only chance the Republicans have this time is if Hillary strolls to the nomination (has so many Superdelegates she probably already has it sewn up) and then something super-damaging about her comes out.

Colonialboy

Joe Biden, questions Hilarys authenticity with regard to her comments on the rich-poor divide.
He praises Bernies authenticy and credibility on the same subject.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-income-inequality/

by the way, I managed to pick up that nice pair of flip flops I was talking about earlier today.

Trump is looking very fresh and energised, I think he has the stamina for the long haul . Id question Hilary, all these issues with her as a candidate will take their toll on her.

Rand Paul , Carly Fiorina didnt make the main stage debate for tomorrows GOP debate. THey are pencilied in for the prelim debate.

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

Was it a judicial overreach? I haven't read the Justice decisions/opinions but what generally speaking, or specifically, was the overreach?

Well the US Supreme Court has typically been far more generous than in other countries when it comes to giving themselves powers. But the gay marriage decision in particular. No other Supreme Court would do such a thing or has to my knowledge. It's not for a small group of unelected unaccountable judges to essentially create law like that. I'm for gay marriage in general, supported the referendum, but not judicial overreach to achieve that end. In fact there doesn't seem to be any power which the supreme court thinks it does not have and that's very dangerous.

walshyn93

Deleted User wrote: »

Before actually securing the nomination Romney consistently beat Obama in the polls. Once he was confirmed that changed sharp-ish. Other than a couple of old-school pollsters and the utterly delusional wing of the Republicans it was obvious he had no chance.

The only chance the Republicans have this time is if Hillary strolls to the nomination (has so many Superdelegates she probably already has it sewn up) and then something super-damaging about her comes out.

That was more to do with media scrutiny. There were a lot of big personalities that year to draw attention away. Trump has been the centre of scrutiny this whole campaign so it's going to take something special to hit his poll numbers.

keane2097

walshyn93 wrote: »

Well the US Supreme Court has typically been far more generous than in other countries when it comes to giving themselves powers. But the gay marriage decision in particular. No other Supreme Court would do such a thing or has to my knowledge. It's not for a small group of unelected unaccountable judges to essentially create law like that. I'm for gay marriage in general, supported the referendum, but not judicial overreach to achieve that end. In fact there doesn't seem to be any power which the supreme court thinks it does not have and that's very dangerous.

It's probably fairly off topic, but I find the idea of a majority ruling on whether a minority ought to have a right via a referendum more odious than the idea of judges ruling on same FWIW.

PopePalpatine

Colonialboy wrote: »

Rand Paul , Carly Fiorina didnt make the main stage debate for tomorrows GOP debate. THey are pencilied in for the prelim debate.

It looks like Rand Paul won't make the preliminary debate either, but this time it's his own choice. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/rand-paul-fox-debate/

Rand Paul's campaign team wrote:

By any reasonable criteria Sen. Paul has a top tier campaign. He will not let the media decide the tiers of this race and will instead take his message directly to the voters of New Hampshire and Iowa.

Multiple national polls including CNN, CBS, Fox, Marist and others have him in 5th or 6th place, one had him just a single point out of 4th. In multiple polls he scores ahead of Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina. In yesterday's Marist Iowa poll he was alone in 5th place. In fact his numbers are on the rise in recent weeks.

walshyn93

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It looks like Rand Paul won't make the preliminary debate either, but this time it's his own choice. http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/rand-paul-fox-debate/

Rand can go. He hasn't added much. Nor has Fiorina.

eire4

my friend wrote: »

Hilary is cooked, FBI investigation is exposing her real flaws, Iowa polls show Bernie neck and neck!!

Neck and neck with Bernie! Wow

That's embarrassing

Why is that embarrassing? Sanders has a very strong platform and obviously has been finding more and more support as his campaign has moved along. He has been a senator for a long time so he is no lightweight opponent for Clinton.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Given these demographics, theological and social norms, if marital infidelity and family structure are factors that may influence their vote, how would they view Trump's divorce from his 1st wife Ivana to marry his mistress Marla Maples, followed by a divorce from his 2nd wife Marla Maples to marry the 3rd wife Melania?

First Up

eire4 wrote:

Why is that embarrassing? Sanders has a very strong platform and obviously has been finding more and more support as his campaign has moved along. He has been a senator for a long time so he is no lightweight opponent for Clinton.

A proper contest in both parties would be very desirable. For Clinton, having someone to her left will help promote her "moderate" image. Not sure how the Reps can replicate that strategy.

jobbridge4life

walshyn93 wrote: »

Well the US Supreme Court has typically been far more generous than in other countries when it comes to giving themselves powers. But the gay marriage decision in particular. No other Supreme Court would do such a thing or has to my knowledge. It's not for a small group of unelected unaccountable judges to essentially create law like that. I'm for gay marriage in general, supported the referendum, but not judicial overreach to achieve that end. In fact there doesn't seem to be any power which the supreme court thinks it does not have and that's very dangerous.

You call it judicial overreach, others would call it the Supreme Court doing precisely what it is there for, to uphold the law in spite of public opinion. The late, great Tom Bingham wrote in his book 'The Rule of Law' that

'It is unpopular minorities whom charters and bills of rights exist to protect... the majority... can look after itself'

What use is a 'right' if it cannot be asserted against the legislative overreach of Government. Either gay people deserve equality under the law and have the same fundamental right to marriage as others or they don't.

In some ways I prefer the US decision from and it has to be said, one of the most conservative Courts in their history, to our referendum.

jobbridge4life

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This has to be one of your more lolworthy posts. Firstly, generalize much? Mormons, who by the way run the gamete from cultist misogynist polygamists, to Christian gay rights activists are as diverse a population as any within the good old USA and abroad. Secondly, one of my best friends, who happens to be a morman, (remember thats just one aspect of her person) would truly lol at your charitable interpretation of 'her people'.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So they'd prefer Trump? Who has, I'll remind you been the consist front-runner on the Republican side for several months now.

PopePalpatine

Black Swan wrote: »

Given these demographics, theological and social norms, if marital infidelity and family structure are factors that may influence their vote, how would they view Trump's divorce from his 1st wife Ivana to marry his mistress Marla Maples, followed by a divorce from his 2nd wife Marla Maples to marry the 3rd wife Melania?

I'd hazard a guess and say that Trump would play the pro-life card to win them over.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well never mind gambling, Mormons aren't supposed to even drink. There's no bars or pubs in Utah, only "private clubs".

So in asking generally what people's opinions are of trumps chances with the faithful, i picked utah as an example of an ultra religious state.

Casinos arent an issue yet because we haven't started the Presidential campaign, but you can bet DNC lawyers are going over every line of trumps bankruptcy filings.

Ps. I have no doubt the republican candidate will pick up utah's 6 electoral votes btw