2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

First Up

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So, if she wins the Democratic nomination, would you agree that none of this stuff will matter in the campaign against Trump?

my friend

First Up wrote: »

So, if she wins the Democratic nomination

you're counting your chickens before the eggs are hatched, its panic stations in camp Clinton, Bill has the gloves on, he knows if HRC gets dumped its tied to him too, legacy destroyed for all to see (even though it has been already)

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-it-s-panic-mode-democratic-establishment-n500291

Its Panic Mode!

http://freebeacon.com/blog/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-debate/

Panic as Clinton Falters

and finally ....... even the Irish Media and Hillary darling Niall O'Dowd ACKNOWLEDGE there are problems for HRC

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/with-clinton-faltering-against-an-outsider-again-its-time-to-put-bill-front-and-centre-34375750.html

Trump V Sanders is looking more likely than ever.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

First Up

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Clinton was the mother of all speculators and now she is destroying women's lives? Are you not concerned that this sort of overblown hype might be seen as a hysterical substitute for an argument?

We can discuss Clinton V Sanders and/or Clinton/Sanders V Trump. They are different contests but one has a major bearing on the other; what matters is who can win in November. A choice between the known (Clinton) and a loose canon like Trump is no contest. However given a choice between a loose canon Trump and a socialist Sanders, we are into the realm of the weird.

I think Sanders will get off to a decent start in Iowa and New Hampshire and given the media's eagerness for a story, this will be well hyped up. However Clinton is miles ahead nationally and after a few more primaries, this will be a non-story. Clinton will be home and dry by March.

Fr Tod Umptious

First Up wrote: »

So, if she wins the Democratic nomination, would you agree that none of this stuff will matter in the campaign against Trump?

It certainly will matter.

It will not drive young women to vote for Trump (if it is Trump), but it will stop some of them for voting altogether.

First Up

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It certainly will matter.

It will not drive young women to vote for Trump (if it is Trump), but it will stop some of them for voting altogether.

It might, but the temptation of voting in America's first female President will be pretty hard to resist. And Trump is quite likely to shoot his mouth off about her to such an extent that even Republican women vote for her in large numbers.

Fr Tod Umptious

First Up wrote: »

It might, but the temptation of voting in America's first female President will be pretty hard to resist. And Trump is quite likely to shoot his mouth off about her to such an extent that even Republican women vote for her in large numbers.

If she was young , and dynamic and new, maybe.

But she's not, she's old, has been on these scene for ages, lacks charisma, and is not very popular with Mary and John Doe, if she was then her debates would be on in prime time, just like the GOP ones.

I'd give Hillary better odds of being in the GE than Trump by the way, so I can't see Rubio or Cruz shooting their mounts off about her.

my friend

First Up wrote: »

It might, but the temptation of voting in America's first female President will be pretty hard to resist. And Trump is quite likely to shoot his mouth off about her to such an extent that even Republican women vote for her in large numbers.

You assume women are sexist, very patronising. Your assumption also fails on the belief that Hillary can win votes from undecided voters, she can't, she's negative in that department, both Sanders & Trump have superior vote mopping potential.
If you drill down and educate yourself with respect to the data available you would be aware of these facts.
America won't be won over by the presence of a vagina or testes , ultimately substance will matter and HRC while possessing a seemingly impressive CV lacks the integrity and the voters know it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

First Up wrote: »

Well I did mention the Electoral College, the significance of which seems to be missed by a lot of our amateur analysts.

Simply put, the election will be decided by a relatively small number of States that are still in play. Obama won almost all of them in 2008 and 2012 and the demographics have moved even further in the Dems direction since. Throw in Trump's penchant for alienating exactly the sort of people he needs and it isn't a stretch to think Hillary could get close to Obama's 330+ from last time.

As it stands, the Dems are a lock for about 240/250 of the 270 they need so the GOP needs to win back just about all the States they lost the last two times - probably with a candidate who epitomises why voters deserted them in 2008 and 2012.

I think this election is a done deal. The real battle is for the future relevance of the Republican Party, which they need to reclaim from Fox and the Mad Hatter Tea Party or risk oblivion.

Meanwhile the obsession with Hillary's stock trading, Chelsea's penthouse and Bill's wandering eye (et al) can be sung to the accompaniment of the orchestra on the Titanic.

Whatever about the outcome of this years US presidential election I really do not see how the Republican Party even remotely faces oblivion. The US political system is a 2 party monopoly on power controlled by the Democratic and Republican Parties. The system is rigged, corrupt and dysfunctional in a manner where neither party has any real incentive right now to actually reform and turn away from the type of oligarchy which the US has become. As such neither party under the current corrupt and dysfunctional system is ever likely to be facing the risk of oblivion any time soon. I might add the Republicans control 36 of 50 state legislatures and a similar number of governorships as well as both houses of congress. So the Republicans are going to have to lose a heck of a lot of elections before the word oblivion becomes a real threat and given how corrupt and dysfunctional the system currently is that is simply not going to happen any time soon.

Fr Tod Umptious

First Up wrote: »

I’d put only Ohio, Florida and Virginia in “toss up” range along with a few smaller ones like Nevada, Colorado and Iowa. (New Hampshire always treasures its 4 votes.) If you were a GOP optimist you might put Pennsylvania and maybe Wisconsin in there too but I wouldn’t. Trump has almost certainly talked his way out of Florida and maybe even Arizona which would normally be safe GOP territory. And with Palin now on board the ship of fools, all those Dem leaning States are going to lean a little further.

The long term worry for the GOP is how far Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Palin etc. are dragging them into wing-nut territory and ever further beyond the reach of a voter majority. Have you seen Rubio’s latest campaign ad espousing his religious credentials? I mean here is an election (like any other) that is 75% about the economy and 25% about all the other stuff and this is what the sanest of the three GOP candidates thinks the electorate needs to hear?

Clinton at 4/6? Well you can only get 5/6 with Paddy Power so maybe I should grab those Ladbroke odds before they shorten even more. As with 2012, the media will try to pretend this is a serious contest right up to election night. It isn’t but sure we’ll all play along.

Not sure how serious you are with this post or whether you just don't understand the mindset of the average American voter.

Your assertion that Trump has lost Arizona and Florida for the GOP is very naive.

Firstly Trump may not be the candidate and secondly there are plenty all over those states that agree with his assesment of illegal immigrants.

Its a bit like travelers in Ireland, many would like a politician that would say out lound that they sponge off the state and commit crimes, cos that's what may of us think anyway.

MightyMandarin

I'm getting sick of Hillary's constant jibes at the Republicans. Sure, it's easy to take aim at the Trump or Cruz side of the party, or the McConnell or Ryan area, but to tarnish the Republicans in a 'them vs us' scenario is out of order.

The GOP has been anything but bi-partisan, but that doesn't mean a president should follow suit. Would the next 4 years of her presidency be just a battle with the GOP?

matthew8

I’d put only Ohio, Florida and Virginia in “toss up” range along with a few smaller ones like Nevada, Colorado and Iowa. (New Hampshire always treasures its 4 votes.) If you were a GOP optimist you might put Pennsylvania and maybe Wisconsin in there too but I wouldn’t. Trump has almost certainly talked his way out of Florida and maybe even Arizona which would normally be safe GOP territory. And with Palin now on board the ship of fools, all those Dem leaning States are going to lean a little further.

The polls would disagree with your assessment of the states. If Trump is the candidate I expect that by November he will be firmly behind Clinton in terms of the popular vote, and I think Sanders would probably lead him too. But your assertion that the electoral college massively favours the democrats right now doesn't hold much water, and that's the point I was arguing.

The long term worry for the GOP is how far Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Palin etc. are dragging them into wing-nut territory and ever further beyond the reach of a voter majority. Have you seen Rubio’s latest campaign ad espousing his religious credentials? I mean here is an election (like any other) that is 75% about the economy and 25% about all the other stuff and this is what the sanest of the three GOP candidates thinks the electorate needs to hear?

Given the republicans control both the senate and the house of congress (as well as having more governors) they probably have a better idea than you or me about what the electorate needs to hear.

Clinton at 4/6? Well you can only get 5/6 with Paddy Power so maybe I should grab those Ladbroke odds before they shorten even more. As with 2012, the media will try to pretend this is a serious contest right up to election night. It isn’t but sure we’ll all play along.

Democratic win at 4/6, not Clinton. The media will make anything seem like it's a genuine race but when the bookies have it so close, that's because it is so close.

KingBrian2

matthew8 the Republican party is set for implosion. The conflicting factions are torn by their contradictions. If ever there was a big tent party than the GOP is the biggest tent in the woods. A highly popular figure in the party Ron Paul was anti Lincoln. The Tea Party wanted pledges of Allegiance to the Republican party to increase their credentials.

Their is no satisfying these people. To them the party comes ahead of the country and more importantly to the rest of the world is their opposition to Congress. They don't want abortion, they don't want the NRA to be silenced and they don't want to agree deals with foreign powers. The GOP is speaking for all these voices of unrest. They have lost leaders that can direct the movement.

matthew8

matthew8 the Republican party is set for implosion. The conflicting factions are torn by their contradictions. If ever there was a big tent party than the GOP is the biggest tent in the woods. A highly popular figure in the party Ron Paul was anti Lincoln. The Tea Party wanted pledges of Allegiance to the Republican party to increase their credentials.

There's always going to be conflicting factions in the republican party. It's never been different.

Their is no satisfying these people. To them the party comes ahead of the country and more importantly to the rest of the world is their opposition to Congress.

They're stubborn but right now that's only because it's what the voters want.

They don't want abortion,

Not an unreasonable stance (I'm pro-choice but still).

they don't want the NRA to be silenced

What would silencing the NRA entail and why would that be desirable? Even most people who are pro gun-control would think the NRA have a right to their opinion.

and they don't want to agree deals with foreign powers.

The current republican stance on Iran, Cuba etc. is nothing new. I would agree with you that there's no point in making enemies abroad but I don't think their hostility towards these nations is going to be the downfall of the republican party.

The GOP is speaking for all these voices of unrest. They have lost leaders that can direct the movement.

I agree they don't have a leader right now but you don't neccessarily need one to exercise a significant influence in US politics, the infighting has been going on for years now but they still keep getting congressmen, senators and governors elected. They'll need a leader if they want the white house back but they can survive without it.

First Up

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Not sure how serious you are with this post or whether you just don't understand the mindset of the average American voter.

Depends what you mean by the "average" voter. You could calculate an ideological mid point between gun-toting Republicans and Harvard Square radicals - that would give you a statistical average but not much else.

Or you could mean the great majority who are not registered as party members and not especially ideological; who think local issues are at least as important as national or international concerns and who mostly want their families to be safe and prosperous. Everyone has their concerns but those folk vote for certainty and stability. People like Trump (and Sanders) scare the hell out of them.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Your assertion that Trump has lost Arizona and Florida for the GOP is very naive.

I am fairly confident he has lost Florida. Sure - Palm Beach County will cheer for him but not Miami/Dade. Florida's economy is heavily dependent on Latin America and Trump is causing havoc. Arizona would normally be a safe GOP lock and will probably stay Republican but Trump is making it tougher.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Firstly Trump may not be the candidate and secondly there are plenty all over those states that agree with his assesment of illegal immigrants.

All my predictions are based on Trump and Clinton being the candidates. I'll be happy to review them if they are not.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote:

Its a bit like travelers in Ireland, many would like a politician that would say out lound that they sponge off the state and commit crimes, cos that's what may of us think anyway.

After careful thought, I've decided not to comment.

KingBrian2

matthew8 wrote: »

There's always going to be conflicting factions in the republican party. It's never been different.


They're stubborn but right now that's only because it's what the voters want.


Not an unreasonable stance (I'm pro-choice but still).


What would silencing the NRA entail and why would that be desirable? Even most people who are pro gun-control would think the NRA have a right to their opinion.


The current republican stance on Iran, Cuba etc. is nothing new. I would agree with you that there's no point in making enemies abroad but I don't think their hostility towards these nations is going to be the downfall of the republican party.


I agree they don't have a leader right now but you don't neccessarily need one to exercise a significant influence in US politics, the infighting has been going on for years now but they still keep getting congressmen, senators and governors elected. They'll need a leader if they want the white house back but they can survive without it.

If the stances the Republicans are calling for will make America stronger than I am all for that. To date they adopt strategies that aid their demise. Their is a reason why they are called the War Party. Bicker all they like away from elected politics because when you get elected you have to be diplomatic with Nations. Take Netanyahu big fan of the GOP he condemns the Iran talks so essentially he wants to continue to assault all the secular Arab states. Israel is America's number one ally down to the GOP it makes it impossible for them to work with President Assad, President Putin, President Rouhani & President Castro.

Overheal

The race in Iowa is starting to slip out of Hillary's hands

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-sanders-overtakes-clinton-in-iowa/ar-BBoxw9g?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ansmsnnews11

new poll has Bernie up 51 to 43 points, while 2008 caucus goers still prefer Hillary.

He still has a commanding lead of New Hampshire.

Which means, of course, Hillary has had to begin attacking Bernie - because that's how Hillary does things. First, Bill got some digs in NH, in a roundabout way trying to appeal to voters that a more "pragmatic progressive" is what is needed in the WH next year

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/01/bill_clinton_is_softly_countering_bernie_sanders_in_new_hampshire.html

Her friend David Brock of Media Matters also was a lot more direct, saying "black lives don't matter" to Bernie, according to a recent Iowa/NH ad that he has been airing (that was clearly filmed in either/both states, so represents the demographic). The accusation is the ad (in link) doesn't have any black people - except that their are.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/clinton-surrogate-on-new-sanders-ad-seems-like-black-lives-dont-matter-to-him/

Now the only thing left to do is for Hillary to air her sequel to the "3AM Phone Call" smash hit commercial that helped end her presidential run in 2008. If you aren't winning on the issues, go negative.

my friend

Desperate times for HRC, her security breach/ law breaking handling of classified documents is finally looking to be consequential..

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-emails-a-criminal-charge-is-justified-1453419158

'As the number of disclosed classified messages from Mrs. Clinton’s server has climbed above 1,300, her explanations have come to look increasingly improvisational and contrived'

'intelligence-community investigators believe it is nearly certain that Mrs. Clinton’s server was hacked, possibly by the Chinese or the Russians. This raises the distinct possibility that she would be subject to blackmail in connection with those transactions and whatever else was on that server by people with hostile intent against this country'

Think that's bad, it gets dirtier

'The investigation has now metastasized to include “the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed'

HRC - Not fit for office.

First Up

An opinion piece in the WSJ critical of a Democrat.

Now there's a shock.

my friend

First Up wrote: »

An opinion piece in the WSJ critical of a Democrat.

Now there's a shock.

HRC has taken more cash from Wall Street than any other candidates, jibes about Wall Street in defence of HRC holds no water

fr336

Clinton is compromised with the e-mail thing, end of story. We don't even know how far that goes - that there's a risk there is enough. This is someone wanting to be president of the United States ffs. And she's certainly not good enough for such a risk to be taken.

First Up

my friend wrote:

HRC has taken more cash from Wall Street than any other candidates, jibes about Wall Street in defence of HRC holds no water

You've lost me on the "cash from Wall St" and what that has to do with anything.

The Wall St Journal is owned by News Corp - same as Fox News. Its political partisanship is hardly a surprise.

20Cent

Bizarre endorsement of Trump from Sarah Palin surely one of the strangest political speeches in recent times. Trying to decode it.

Looks like she wants boots on the ground in Syria,

“Are you ready for a commander-in-chief, for a commander-in-chief who will let our warriors do their job and go kick Isis ass?”

I think this means she expects Trump to be very conservative:

“Well, and then funny, ha, not funny, but now, what they’re doing is wailing: 'Well, Trump and his, uh, Trumpeters, they’re not conservative enough.' Oh my goodness gracious. What the heck would the establishment know about conservatism?"

Maybe she wants to repeal abortion in the US:

“Pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, strict constitutionality. Those things that are unifying values from big cities to tiny towns, from big mountain states and the Big Apple, to the big, beautiful heartland that’s in between.”

20Cent

my friend wrote: »

HRC has taken more cash from Wall Street than any other candidates, jibes about Wall Street in defence of HRC holds no water

"Wall street" isn't a homogenous group it consists of many types of financial institutions. I'd imaging the more conservative banks would like more regulation of the hedge fund cowboys making risky deals that could put stability at risk like they did 2010.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

An opinion piece in the WSJ critical of a Democrat.

Now there's a shock.

Do not post in this thread again.

MightyMandarin

20Cent wrote: »

"Wall street" isn't a homogenous group it consists of many types of financial institutions. I'd imaging the more conservative banks would like more regulation of the hedge fund cowboys making risky deals that could put stability at risk like they did 2010.

Are you willing to provide an example of a 'conservative bank' on Wall St.?

Banking is about making money, and risky deals make the most money, hence why the biggest banks make the riskiest deals but still manage to wipe their hands clean when it all goes wrong e.g. 2008 and the bailout.

A 'conservative bank' is a fallacy; it goes against everything modern day banking is about. They're all playing the same game.

MightyMandarin

For anyone out there still not convinced that Bernie's the man to take on Wall St., you won't find a better example than this. The CEO of Blackstone (one of the largest financial firms on Wall St.) makes no attempt to hide the fact that Wall St is frightened at the thought of him being a viable candidate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnQJblzjfGg&feature=youtu.be&t

my friend

....

'In the war for endorsements in the Democratic presidential primary, there is a clear trend.

Every major union or progressive organization that let its members have a vote endorsed Bernie Sanders.

Meanwhile, all of Hillary Clinton’s major group endorsements come from organizations where the leaders decide. And several of those endorsements were accompanied by criticisms from members about the lack of a democratic process'

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/22/bernie-sanders-gets-group-endorsements-when-members-decide-hillary-clinton-when-leaders-decide/

Key thing for Bernie in the primaries is that as many eligible voters as possible are exposed to the truth about the Clinton machine tactics.

Wonder will any correspondence between these so called 'leaders' and camp Clinton surface?