2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

eire4

Hande hoche! wrote: »

That's a pity as regards Rand Paul failing to gain traction. He seemed quite intelligent and understanding during the debates. Made a sensible counter to those ranting about no-fly zones and shooting down Russian jets in Syria, for example.

Agreed. One of the more sane Republicans. Don't agree with him a lot but at least he isn't flat out scary like some of the others.

eire4

MightyMandarin wrote: »

If Rubio's rise continues, I genuinely think the GOP could win the White House. Trump and Cruz haven't a hope in an election, but Rubio could beat Hillary or Bernie, especially Bernie. The DNC should be scared if Rubio keeps rising.

For me the Democrats are in massive trouble if Clinton wins the nomination via the superdelegates who are of course not elected by the voters. I can easily see very large numbers of Sanders voters staying away from the polls if that happens as their attitude will be they lost a rigged election.


On another point. How awful is the whole caucus thing anyway on both sides. Firstly unlike an election day when you have all day you must be at the polling place at a specific time and stay there for maybe up to 3 hours. So if your working in the evening tough you don't get to vote. Secondly then the vote is not secret. Everyone can see who's side your on. Finally then on the Democratic side they actually decided some delegates on coin tosses. I mean are you serious. Talk about an election process that is anything but free and fair. The US loves to go finger pointing to various other countries about elections not being free and fair. I think they need to have a good long hard look in the mirror especially when it comes to the caucus system.

strelok

these aren't elections though they are private party selections, it's just because it's such a media circus they get tied in with the actual "free and fair" elections in everyones mind

the democrats could decide their candidate with a round of darts and it'd be much the same, their party their rules. same with the superdelegate hilarity.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

Which is all brilliant media grabbing stuff. It doesn't indicate that he's a sore loser as you're suggesting considering his earlier congratulations. It doesn't show he's having a meltdown. He's all about fairness and being treated fairly and he's perfectly playing the saviour. The fact that you're doubling down on your mischaracterisation of Trump's reaction to losing shows that you're starting to learn from Trump.

Confirmation bias much. Trump is all about fairness and being treated fairly, as long as he gets to decide what's fair.

He's right about one thing: the Cruz tactics were downright sleazy. But calling for a re-run of the election? Grow up, Donald.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

Confirmation bias much. Trump is all about fairness and being treated fairly, as long as he gets to decide what's fair.

He's right about one thing: the Cruz tactics were downright sleazy. But calling for a re-run of the election? Grow up, Donald.

He doesn't genuinely care about a rerun. He still got 7 delegates to Cruz's 8. It's not a winner take all state. He's only doing it for publicity. If he didn't come out strong against it people would assume it was okay. But the more he attaches the word illegal and slimy and corrupt to Cruz the less support he'll get. Trump as always is playing this to his advantage brilliantly.

oscarBravo

walshyn93 wrote: »

He doesn't genuinely care about a rerun. He still got 7 delegates to Cruz's 8. It's not a winner take all state. He's only doing it for publicity. If he didn't come out strong against it people would assume it was okay. But the more he attaches the word illegal and slimy and corrupt to Cruz the less support he'll get. Trump as always is playing this to his advantage brilliantly.

As always, I'm amused to see Trump supporters judging him by what they assume he means rather than by what he says. It's almost as if the default position is that nothing he says can be taken at face value.

Akrasia

walshyn93 wrote: »

He doesn't genuinely care about a rerun. He still got 7 delegates to Cruz's 8. It's not a winner take all state. He's only doing it for publicity. If he didn't come out strong against it people would assume it was okay. But the more he attaches the word illegal and slimy and corrupt to Cruz the less support he'll get. Trump as always is playing this to his advantage brilliantly.

Cruz (who's not going to win anyway) gets tarnished with the terms slimy and corrupt, while Trump gets universally panned as a sore loser, a crybaby, someone with sour grapes....

Meanwhile Rubio, Trump's biggest challenger at the moment, laughs all the way to the nomination.

Rubio's at about 10% nationally in the polls, but he's likely to pick up transfers and the Anyone but Trump vote as the other candidates drop out of the race.

Trump is at about 35% in national polls. It's hard to see how he can pick up many undecided voters, but it's likely that the strength of opinion against Trump will see a consolidation of voters towards whatever candidate is best placed to prevent him from getting the nomination

I still think it's possible that if Trump loses the GOP nomination, that he will still run as an independent for President. He's always left the door open by saying 'I won't run as an independent as long as I'm treated fairly'
He's already declaring that he's not being treated fairly by pulling out of the debate, and by challenging the result in Iowa...

I think Trump is going to blackmail the party into supporting him. Either this plan will succeed and he gets the GOP nomination, or it fails, and he runs as independent, splits the republican vote and guarantees a democrat victory.

Fr Tod Umptious

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But, younger voters tend not to vote on the day in the numbers that they claim they will in the run up to the poll.

So Bernie has to keep those kids interested and kepp getting them out to the polls on the day.

The Randy Riverbeast

Akrasia wrote: »

Cruz (who's not going to win anyway) gets tarnished with the terms slimy and corrupt, while Trump gets universally panned as a sore loser, a crybaby, someone with sour grapes....

Meanwhile Rubio, Trump's biggest challenger at the moment, laughs all the way to the nomination.

Rubio's at about 10% nationally in the polls, but he's likely to pick up transfers and the Anyone but Trump vote as the other candidates drop out of the race.

Trump is at about 35% in national polls. It's hard to see how he can pick up many undecided voters, but it's likely that the strength of opinion against Trump will see a consolidation of voters towards whatever candidate is best placed to prevent him from getting the nomination

I still think it's possible that if Trump loses the GOP nomination, that he will still run as an independent for President. He's always left the door open by saying 'I won't run as an independent as long as I'm treated fairly'
He's already declaring that he's not being treated fairly by pulling out of the debate, and by challenging the result in Iowa...

I think Trump is going to blackmail the party into supporting him. Either this plan will succeed and he gets the GOP nomination, or it fails, and he runs as independent, splits the republican vote and guarantees a democrat victory.

Im wondering which will be more attractive for them, another democrat term or a trump term?

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

As always, I'm amused to see Trump supporters judging him by what they assume he means rather than by what he says. It's almost as if the default position is that nothing he says can be taken at face value.

The default position is not to take any politician at face value. I'm always amused to see someone with such a simplistic worldview.

walshyn93

Akrasia wrote: »

Cruz (who's not going to win anyway) gets tarnished with the terms slimy and corrupt, while Trump gets universally panned as a sore loser, a crybaby, someone with sour grapes....

Meanwhile Rubio, Trump's biggest challenger at the moment, laughs all the way to the nomination.

Rubio's at about 10% nationally in the polls, but he's likely to pick up transfers and the Anyone but Trump vote as the other candidates drop out of the race.

Trump is at about 35% in national polls. It's hard to see how he can pick up many undecided voters, but it's likely that the strength of opinion against Trump will see a consolidation of voters towards whatever candidate is best placed to prevent him from getting the nomination

I still think it's possible that if Trump loses the GOP nomination, that he will still run as an independent for President. He's always left the door open by saying 'I won't run as an independent as long as I'm treated fairly'
He's already declaring that he's not being treated fairly by pulling out of the debate, and by challenging the result in Iowa...

I think Trump is going to blackmail the party into supporting him. Either this plan will succeed and he gets the GOP nomination, or it fails, and he runs as independent, splits the republican vote and guarantees a democrat victory.

You're only assuming that Trump is transfer toxic but people said that when he was at 20% then again at 30%. When he hit 45% nationally most people stopped making these silly predictions. He's not a sore loser. In fact many people called his immediate reaction contrite. It was 2 days after the result when he started going after Cruz. Again, your narrative is shaky at best. Supported only by a hostile media that most people have already tuned out of.

I personally think it's more likely that Trump will consolidate the Cruz defectors. If Cruz loses the next 3 there will be a mass defection to the other antiestablishment candidate with a chance of winning.

walshyn93

Apparently Rubio Trump and Carson are all condemning Cruz actions. But it's just Trump who's a sore loser.

K-9

Cruz does well with the evangelical support, Trump not so much, hard to know if that support would transfer to Trump if Cruz falls away. Rubio is well positioned to pick up support from any of the more moderate candidates who drop out.

MightyMandarin

walshyn93 wrote: »

Apparently Rubio Trump and Carson are all condemning Cruz actions. But it's just Trump who's a sore loser.

Trump's the only one calling for a re-run or nullifying Cruz's votes. There's a big difference.

walshyn93

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Trump's the only one calling for a re-run or nullifying Cruz's votes. There's a big difference.

Yeah. It's good publicity. I don't know the ins and outs of whether it's even possible tbh but if Trump says it was wrong but let's move on he's basically giving in like Sanders on the emails. If he throws up mad suggestions it prolongs the agony for Cruz. Cruz's loss is Trump's gain.

eire4

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But, younger voters tend not to vote on the day in the numbers that they claim they will in the run up to the poll.

So Bernie has to keep those kids interested and kepp getting them out to the polls on the day.

That is true. One of the reasons voter turnout is so pathetic and embarrassing in the US is a large chunk of younger voters do not show up. For Sanders to be successful he is going to need large numbers of younger voters who usually don't vote to do just that and show up and vote.

eire4

strelok wrote: »

these aren't elections though they are private party selections, it's just because it's such a media circus they get tied in with the actual "free and fair" elections in everyones mind

the democrats could decide their candidate with a round of darts and it'd be much the same, their party their rules. same with the superdelegate hilarity.

I get your point and your right. But the fact that these private party elections do seek to attract the public to come out and vote puts them into the relam of an election.

Canadel

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And when it comes to crunch time, those daughters will vote with their mothers and grandmothers.

oscarBravo

eire4 wrote: »

One of the reasons voter turnout is so pathetic and embarrassing in the US is a large chunk of younger voters do not show up.

Another is that it can be hard to get time off work to vote. This is exacerbated in some districts by an under-supply of voting machines, leading to long wait times to vote. Unsurprisingly, this is mostly a problem in districts with populations less likely to vote for the incumbent party's candidates - another symptom of the gerrymandering problem.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Anecdotally, I tend to agree Permabear that Millennials, especially college/university enrolled (I've encountered haphazardly during past months) tend to favour Bernie greatly over Hillary, as well as very few caring for any of the GOP presidential candidates. But they must vote in primary and the November 2016 GE, and historically they/we make a lot of noise, but don't show to vote. If they/we did in great numbers (over 20 million enrolled voting age students this academic year), they/we could probably swing the election (but don't hold your breath).

Black Swan

Canadel wrote: »

And when it comes to crunch time, those daughters will vote with their mothers and grandmothers.

Perhaps in the past, but Swannie doesn't think so today, especially among college/university age females (roughly 10 million enrolled potential voters), given the typical rebellion of youth and striving for independence that just doesn't affect young males, but also your relatively new Super Girl and Laura Croft females in today's America. Scoot over Mum and Gran, it's the 21st Century USA.

Black Swan

Clinton and Sanders are to debate at New Hampshire University Thursday 9PM Eastern Time (2AM Friday Eire time) and will be telecast on MSNBC. For details please see link: How to Watch the New Hampshire Democratic Debate on Thursday.

Overheal

thats tonight!

Fr Tod Umptious

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think he would be picked apart for his complete lack of experience. For all of the justified criticism of Obama's lack of achievement in office as a Senator, Rubio is probably worse. He's a total lightweight and lacks any conviction, as evidenced by his abandonment of immigration reform.

Rubio is a young, eithnic, first term senator trying to follow a two term president from the other party into the white house.

Sound familiar ?

Fr Tod Umptious

Overheal wrote: »

thats tonight!

Yep, Hillary on a debate ona Thursday night, in prime time, pretty amazing

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Rubio is a young, eithnic, first term senator trying to follow a two term president from the other party into the white house.

Sound familiar ?

Indeed Fr Tod Umptious, all too familiar, and one that could do a better job attempting to draw in the fastest growing minority Hispanic voter segment, but seems to be stumbling about and failing to doing so.

Besides winning enough state primaries, additionally, Rubio (or whomever the GOP nominates) needs a female VP running mate (to offset Hillary) that is light years ahead of former Republican 2008 VP candidate Sarah Palin in terms of intelligence, knowledge, debating skills, masterful speech making, and a dynamic presentation-of-self before news media, celebrity media, and the campaign circuit, in contrast to the dull, boring, unimaginative Hillary Clinton. Carly Fiorina is even worse than Hillary in this regard.

This Republican female VP running mate could help draw the women's voting segment away from the Dems, and be the 1st female VP in the history of USA (Yes, I know female gender should not be a qualifier, but in November 2016 I believe it will have a significant impact). The one I am thinking about can also play on the fact she is outside the political establishment (like Trump and Carson), thereby appealing to that other segment (mostly independents) that are fed-up with the existing government establishment and established 2-parties. She did moderate the 3rd GOP debate, and was very threatening to the candidates that gave typical wishy washy answers, given her high level of knowledge and preparation. Although she does have a degree in political science, her professional work experience (International business and economics editor, "On the Money" anchor, etc.) and connections are with the Fourth Estate, and I believe she could manipulate the news media better than Trump, and beat the socks-off Hillary in debate. Swannie nominates for the GOP/VP: Becky Quick.

Quick is Quick!

PopePalpatine

Did Gilmore even feature in the pre-qualifying undercard debates?