2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Sanders is 7/2 to get the nomination. He needs to win bug and win early to have any chance and with the state of superdelegates so far needs to win about 53% of delegates from here on to make i t a tie. Not gonna happen. His only chance is getting at least 60% on Super Tuesday to shame the party into being fair but looking at the states involved I can't see him doing better than a very narrow overall win. At that stage it'll be all but confirmed Hillary has it.

Black Swan

StewartGriffin wrote: »

In my opinion due to his age and his politics Sanders is unelectable.

Former Republican president Ronald Reagan was the oldest president in office who left at 77 years old, so I wonder if age will be a significant factor when voters consider Sanders' qualifications for 2016 president? He will be the oldest if elected 2016. Ironically, it appears at this time that the strongest support for Sanders is coming from Millennials and college/university students: i.e., the youngest voting group generally favouring the oldest 2016 presidential candidate.

Now, as to politics, whomever the GOP nominates for president will use the magic "S-word" against Sanders, in an attempt to unthinkingly discredit anything he advocates, and that might work. Of course most voters don't have the slightest idea what the "S-word" means, but that has never stopped them from voting against someone in the past labelled with it.

MightyMandarin

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I guess what I mean is that at least Americans will know they're getting a power-hungry venal ****wit for President as opposed to an 'Obama' who sold power-hungry venal ****wittery as 'hope and change'.

Ok, first of all, there's no need to call anyone a '****wit', it doesn't make Trump look any weaker or your point any stronger.

Secondly, I hear this argument 'oh at least you know what you get with Trump' trotted out around here, and well, it's actually quite the opposite. Watch his interview with NBC News this evening (I'd link it but I'm on my phone and it's late) and in it he talks about how his 'language' is basically just for the campaign and as president he'd never call anyone stupid, ugly, fat, a pussy etc.

Now, that's just one part of his persona, but if he's saying that some of his behaviour is an act, well what else is an act? Do we really 'know what we're getting with Trump'?

MightyMandarin

StewartGriffin wrote: »

He will put Donald Trump in the White House. If Trump wins the Republican nomination and Sanders is the only alternative, Trump will win the presidency. If Hillary is in the race, moderate voters will pick her.

Unfortunately for you the polls have shown the exact opposite and Sanders comfortably beats Cruz and Trump, with a much larger margin than Hillary, who actually loses in some of them. Sanders might be 'far left' for some americans, but he's better than either of the two.

Where I am concerned however, is if one of the moderates gets the nomination. It looked like Rubio would surge but now that he's gone full robot-mode he's fallen back with the rest of them. Unless one of the governors can make a big surge in the next few weeks, I think Trump could match up against Bernie, and I've no doubt Bernie would smash him in an election, unless Bloomberg hopped in and ruined it for everyone.

saram

ABC
Sanders followed by Trump to win outright would be my preference.

This NH vote was always predictable.
Some huge battles ahead.

MadYaker

I dunno how the Americans can put up with such a blistering barrage of bullsh!t from almost all the candidates. The speeches are all so light on policy detail and so heavy on cliches and whimsical nonsense. The only ones I can bare to listen to for more than 10 seconds are Sanders and Kasich.

NH seems to has gone as predicted? Sanders and Trump on top. Nice to see a strong enough showing from Kasich too.

What's happened to Amerika? He was a good poster here and although I never agreed with him I thought it was nice to have a few sensible republican posters here to add a bit of variety.

MadYaker

Stupid double post

Overheal

the lad is around, frankly its hard to keep up with this thread somedays, I'll look away for a few hours and its blown through 100 posts or back and forth.

add to that, if you look at the thread by posts he's actually the most prolific poster!

Junkyard Tom

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Secondly, I hear this argument 'oh at least you know what you get with Trump' trotted out around here, and well, it's actually quite the opposite.

I think you missed the point of my post. 'At least you know what you get with Trump' isn't an endorsement from me - it's a critique. You know you're going to get a bull****ter with Trump. The US electorate got a bullshitter with Obama but thought they were voting for 'hope and change'.

hatrickpatrick

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has described Sanders as 'Dangerous' because Sanders said:

What an arrogant cunt Blankfein is.

It reminds me of Adam Smith's statement:

At least the American people will know what they're getting with Trump. Obama was a re-brand who sold 'hope and change' and delivered SFA.

If a Wall St executive regards Sanders as "dangerous", that bodes incredibly well for the rest of us if he wins.

hatrickpatrick

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I think you missed the point of my post. 'At least you know what you get with Trump' isn't an endorsement from me - it's a critique. You know you're going to get a bull****ter with Trump. The US electorate got a bullshitter with Obama but thought they were voting for 'hope and change'.

In my view this is what's behind the extreme anti-Clinton sentiment from a segment of Sanders' supporters. They regard Obama, and by extension anyone who was part of his administration, as a liar. He pledged to restore the civil liberties Bush decimated, instead he actually f*cked them up even more. He pledged to deal with Wall St, but his justice department balked at prosecuting anyone over the subprime crisis and Clinton is very clearly on first name terms with people the public believes should be defending themselves in criminal court cases. He pledged to be less of a foreign policy hawk, but he defended immunity for those who orchestrated torture and got the US embroiled in new foreign conflicts which have nothing to do with the US.

I actually like Obama in a lot of ways, but it's obvious where the feeling that he betrayed his progressive base is coming from, and that's bad news for Clinton since hew hawkishness (particularly her vitriolic verbal assault on whistleblowers over both the Wikileaks and the Snowden disclosures) have cemented her reputation as being far more right wing on some issues than she claims to be.

Essentially, this Democratic Primary is going to come down to a battle between those who are ok with a centre-right Democratic party and a far right Republican party, and those who want a genuinely left wing alternative to the Republican Party.

I've also mentioned on Reddit that I believe globalisation of social networks to be a factor here. For years, Americans have been presented with a false narrative of a left/right divide (when by the standards of most other countries, what they actually have is a centre-right and far right divide) - but young Americans, through the internet and through college exchange programs, are increasingly exposed to European politics which is giving them a radical new concept of what "centrist" actually means, and I think going forward that the general right wing "mid point" of US politics is going to shift further towards the actual centre as this generation ages.

Overheal

StewartGriffin wrote: »

In my opinion due to his age and his politics Sanders is unelectable.
.

Age doesn't seem to affect is game on the court

http://www.mediaite.com/online/call-him-bernie-buckets-sanders-hits-shot-after-shot-playing-hoops-during-nh-primary/

Black Swan

Effective 10 February 2016 at 1:07AM EST Sanders has 138,331 votes with 265 of 300 Dems precincts reporting; and Trump has 92,062 votes with 264 of 300 GOP precincts reporting.

Ozymandius2011

Very pleased by the Trump result. It's clear when you also factor in results in recent European national elections that Trump, Wilders, the Danish People's Party etc are part of a growing backlash against open borders in western countries. Like Martin Luther King, Trump opposes illegal immigration. Hopefully the influence will be felt here.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Hande hoche!

Well this result does not bode well for the 3-2-1 strategy some were discussing in regards to Rubio. The votes should give a bit of momentum for Jeb and Kasich. Now to see how it goes in South Carolina/Nevada. Hopefully Sanders will do better than anticipated.

BoJack Horseman

It was interesting if predictable that the UK media were overjoyed that Trump lost iowa last week.

Much more muted response today though.

LuckyLloyd

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It was interesting if predictable that the UK media were overjoyed that Trump lost iowa last week.

Much more muted response today though.

Wasn't just the UK media, the US establishment attempted to portray Trump as a huge loser also. Real story is he got a big turnout in a state demographically unfavourable to him and over performed his polling averages in NH by four points despite spending just $3.7m in the state total (Jeb! spent ~10 times that).

The nature of the result suits him also. Very good chance Kasich, Jeb? and Rubio all stick around to Super Tuesday delaying the emergence of the single 'establishment' candidate until too late.

One of Trump or Cruz very likely to secure the Republican nomination now. If you hate the GOP like I do since the 2000s barrage of voting trickery, 'swift boat veterans for truth' and 'Obama is a Muslim' nonsense, these are heady times. The party seemed to think they could indulge in base hate, racism and obstructionism but then force through a half reasonable McCain, Romney, Bush candidate like always. They are about to reap what they have sown.

Hopefully they look deep inside themselves finally and reform as a fiscally conservative / socially liberal balancer. Eschew the nationalism / racism / religious extremes and there is no TRUMP or Cruz. Fascinating stuff.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The demographic shifts are well known, but you're missing something huge. Technology and automation will do an awful lot of the jobs that are currently done by people. While the number of workers may well go down, the productivity per worker will almost certainly increase. in this kind of world, distribution of resources becomes the economic problem, not productivity or wealth creation.

About 35% of jobs are at risk of being replaced by automation in the next 20 years
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34066941

A system where the owners of capital get to make the rules to suit themselves will result in mass unemployment and huge inequality and social problems

The solution is a shift from profit maximising economics, to one where social objectives are the priority. Reduced working hours, increased holidays, access to lifelong educational opportunities...

Sanders is the only candidate who favours redistributing wealth from the super rich to benefit society and improve working and living conditions for Americans.

Inquitus

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Well this result does not bode well for the 3-2-1 strategy some were discussing in regards to Rubio. The votes should give a bit of momentum for Jeb and Kasich. Now to see how it goes in South Carolina/Nevada. Hopefully Sanders will do better than anticipated.

It's now a 3-4-5 strategy

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They do in America, where productivity has been increasing while wages are stagnant or declining

Of course governments can manage working hours. That's what labour protection laws are for.

In The Netherlands, the average working week is 27 hours but their productivity per head of population is 6th highest in the OECD

Germany has an average working week of 35 hours and 24 paid holidays a year...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

A star spangled cast created an hour long Funny or Die "Art of the Deal: The Movie"

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ad38087bac/donald-trump-art-of-the-deal-movie?_cc=__d___&_ccid=45475a84a9880a6b

With Johnny Depp, Ron Howard, Alfred Molina, Robert Morse, Patton Oswalt, Jack McBrayer, Michaela Watkins, Henry Winkler, Stephen Merchant, Christopher Lloyd, Kristen Schaal, Andy Richter, Paul Scheer, Rob Huebel, Tymberlee Hill, Alf, Jordan Coleman, Joe Nuñez, Jeremy Konner and more

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Having labour protection laws isn't a state engineered utopia and shifting the balance between employees and employers is part of the policy decisions that every government has to consider.

Sanders is the candidate who favours shifting the balance more towards workers rights

My point, which you've failed to address in a substantive way, is that the Congressional Budget Office notes that entitlement spending has to be cut, and taxes have to be raised, to meet the budgetary and demographic challenges of the decades ahead. Given the mounting pressures on programs such as Social Security and Medicare, there is no alternative. Cutting entitlement spending is anathema to Democrats, and raising taxes is anathema to Republicans, but the economic logic here is inescapable, and you can't dance around it by saying that we need to "shift from profit maximising economics, to one where social objectives are the priority."

None of these analysts take into account the value of the increased wealth generated by non human workers.

Productivity increases can pay for the retirement of an ageing workforce, but only if the wealth is redistributed and not hoarded by the owners of the capital that has displaced the workers.

If there are 10% fewer workers, and 10% more retired people, this looks like a big problem, until you add in the fact that 35% of the jobs that used to be done by people are now done by automated processes, and the human workforce is twice or 3 times more productive. There's no loss to the economy, but the threat is that the greedy elites who already control the vast majority of the wealth in the country, will hoard the profits from increased productivity while the pensioners live on reduced incomes.

However, Sanders merely promises a raft of new entitlements ("Free college! Free healthcare!") that he promises to pay for by taxing Wall Street and the 1%. This is populist left-wing economics that relies upon the same fantastical "magic money tree" solutions as Sinn Fein does in Ireland. It's not grounded in the real world.

Wall street can afford to pay the extra tax

Especially considering the harm that the 'smartest guys in the room' caused to the global economy over the last 10 years.

As the New York Times notes:



Note in particular that Sanders' proposed additional payroll taxes will likely be passed on to consumers and employees. That means inflation and lower take-home wages, both of which will hurt working families. Note too that the "political feasibility of imposing such a vast overhaul" is in serious question -- see my earlier points about Sanders trying to get the largest package of tax increases since World War II past a hostile, Republican-controlled Congress. That's simply not going to happen.

You consistently refuse to look at both sides of the balance sheet. Sanders will increase taxes but he also proposes to redistribute the money raised in a progressive manner.

His tax increases will target wealthy people more than lower income people, and the benefits will benefit lower income people more than wealthy people.

He's trying to rebalance the wealth and income inequality that is getting out of control in the U.S.

Political feasability is filed under a bridge to be crossed when he gets there. Nobody knows what the balance of power will be after the election. We can speculate, but it comes down to who people vote for. The mood of the nation could be very different in November compared to today.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

Hopefully Sanders can keep this going and we get rid of wannabe political presidential dynasties.


Big win for Trump, I think he can keep it going, his attack ad on Cruz in North Carolina is good - Can't be TrusTed.
CNN polls show Trump has the most support among women for any GOP candidate.

Could yet be Trump v Sanders.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why do I have to convince them to invest in efficiencies? If the tax rate is increased regardless of whether they invest in efficiencies, they'll still be better off investing even if they have to pay more tax.

Plus, investing in new machinery is a way to reduce your tax liability. the incentives to invest would be higher if there is a higher tax rate.

Again, you need these "greedy elites" to make the capital investments that will enable the automation of 35% of the jobs. They will only do so if they can "hoard the profits." Investors are not philanthropists.

I'm not saying that they should work for free, they can still profit from their enterprise

Using free market logic, the tax rate should be set at the point where there are diminishing marginal returns.

It's hard to argue that the current tax rates in the U.S. are at this level (or close)




We have already been over this. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that the revenue-maximizing financial transactions tax rate would be around 0.1%. At that rate, the tax would yield $50 billion annually. At higher rates, the TPC estimates, the behavioral responses of traders to the tax would lead revenues to decline.

According to his stated tax plan, Bernie Sanders proposes to raise $300 billion, or six times the Tax Policy Center's estimated maximum amount, from a financial transactions tax. So that's a shortfall of $250 billion a year right there.
[/quote]
There are other analyses that come up with different figures 350 billion a year is probably too high, 50 billion a year is probably too low.




Well, that's very convenient.[/QUOTE]
Well my crystal ball is out of order at the moment...

You're trying to predict how the politics of america will operate after the election and then use that prediction as a reason to vote one way or the other.

Clinton may or may not be able to 'get things done' nobody knows, If the republicans control congress they could be just as intransigent towards Clinton as Sanders (and Obama) but i'd rather have someone trying their hardest to get positive things done, and getting blocked by the republicans, than the usual political BS of pandering to special interests and business as usual.

JPNelsforearm

Just saw this on FB

"Journalism"

Overheal

They promised months ago to add his racism and sexism into their coverage. And its substantiated in the article.

Chris Christie is out by the way.

Fiorina will still miss the CBS debate though, with Christie gone she still was 7th in NH, polls 7th in SC, and polls 7th nationally. Short of some miraculous revision in poll data in the next 48 hours her campaign is effectively tanked.

Oh and here's a humorous ad from Ted Cruz, featuring the Trump action figure http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cruz-ad-hawks-trump-action-figure-pretends-to-be-a-republican-eminent-domain/