2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

LuckyLloyd

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Just saw this on FB

"Journalism"

The funny thing is this nonsense helps Trump more than it hurts him right now. He is representing a lot of anger, disenfranchisement and anti establishment feeling. A lot of his voters probably don't pay Huffington the slightest bit of attention, and if they did see that they'd probably cheer the Donald for 'sticking it to the man'. Then there's the 'rich white guy' section of his support who see him as a blank canvas apolitical type and they don't think politics should try and fix any of that stuff anyway so they also would enjoy that.

I mean Trump called Cruz a pussy on stage a couple of days ago to the approval of the crowd. I think he gets exposed on these points in a general and we have a Goldwater type result, but the Republican Party 2016 clearly has a ~35 - 40% core that ARE racist, sexist and nationalist and long for a politician to return them to 1973. We kind of knew this of course, just as we knew some decent percentage of them want a religious conservative and have adopted Cruz.

This is the party the National, Fox News and the Tea Party influence have created. They just aren't able to flick the switch this time and somehow get a reasonable candidate to front it all come the general. Boo hoo.

Inquitus

The only way I can see Trump winning the presidency is if somehow Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race, in that match up, and with Bernie invariably being tarred with the dreaded socialism brush he might well win!

MightyMandarin

Inquitus wrote: »

The only way I can see Trump winning the presidency is if somehow Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race, in that match up, and with Bernie invariably being tarred with the dreaded socialism brush he might well win!

Look at the polls; Trump and Cruz lose everytime against Bernie because he's just a better candidate with actual policies. Hillary wins by less, and even loses in some polls, so I'm not sure the belief that Sanders is less likely to win against Trump is correct.

LuckyLloyd

Genuinely unworried about Trump's chances in a general bar Hillary being indicted / Sanders being assassinated or something - i.e. the non zero chance that something very strange happens before Election Day totally unforseen. In a general the entire electorate comes into play, including all those Latino Democrats who Trump has been savaging. Moreover, whereas right now his opponents are partially busy knocking each other around the place, the full Democratic war machine (such as it is, jaded in the post Obama world) will focus on him in a new context where his aggressive ripostes won't play so well. And that leaves aside the fact that he'll be accused of flipping and flopping endlessly as he moderates his platform. Then there will be the three presidential debates, where the one on one format should expose his rough policy edges.

Cruz may be slightly more electable as he is a professional politician, etc but he gets hammered in a general too on different points.

The GOP is eating itself here, and it may be the best thing that's happened the party since the 60's.

eire4

Inquitus wrote: »

The only way I can see Trump winning the presidency is if somehow Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race, in that match up, and with Bernie invariably being tarred with the dreaded socialism brush he might well win!

The latest polls dated February 4th have Sanders beating Trump in a potential presidential matchup:


Quinnipiac 49-39 Sanders
PPP 46-42 Sanders


So the polls seem to indicate there is a lot of people responding to his message of reforming a corrupted political and financial system. Whether he would win any potential presidential match against Trump or any other Republican cannot be said with any degree of certainty one way or the other. What can be said with certainty is that given the Democratic party itself continues to do its all to have Clinton as its nominee now mainly through the use of super delegates in Clintons favour regardless of the voters wishes it is harder for Sanders to win the Democratic nomination then it would be for him to win any potential presidential matchup.


I have said this before and will say it again. If Sanders continues to perform so well and only loses the Democratic nomination via super delegates who of course are not elected but are just party officials and politicians they risk not just losing the presidential election but maybe making inroads into Republican majorities in the senate and house as well. If things go this route the Sanders voters will feel cheated by a rigged Democratic selection system and may well not turn out in November. There is plenty of disunity on the Republican side no question about it but I have heard few people talk about this potential situation on the Democratic side as well. Election after election the Democrats have put up candidates that Sanders type voters are not very happy with and are told you need to vote for this person or a worse disaster will happen if the other side gets in. Many Sanders voters are so energized by him and they are fed up being told to wait and to vote for the lesser of 2 evils.

eire4

Akrasia wrote: »

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.


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.

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.[/QUOTE]





I would also add that if you create an economy where people making say $25,000-50,000 a year can earn a few thousand more then this will have massive benefits to the overall economy as people on those kinds of wages are going to spend a large chunk of that money thus helping the overall economy. The system now sees most growth go towards those at the top. An extra few thousand means nothing to the guy who already owns a fleet of cars, multiple homes and a yacht.


In terms of social security lets not forget it is an insurance programme that people pay into throughout their working lives. Currently the social security tax is capped at $118,500. Thus the wealthy above that pay zero social security tax on that higher income. That cap needs to be removed. Eliminating that cap would solve about 74% of the projected shortfall in social security which is projected to occur in or around 2035. So while not solving all social security problems this one move in making the wealthy pay a fair share of social security tax would solve most of the social security long term funding issues.

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

What I would add is that if a man who was one of those resonsible for destroying the lives of millions of Americans due to his criminal behaviour and did so with impunity thinks Sanders is dangerous what does that make him because whatever Sanders may or may not be the likes of him and Jamie Dimon at Chase are the very definition of all that is wrong with the current financial system in the US and are the poster boys for a corrupt and rigged economy.

StewartGriffin

If it comes down to a Capitalist versus a Socialist, everything else, - personality, intelligence, political competence, will all be irrelevant.

The U.S.A. is not ready to elect a socialist President.

eire4

StewartGriffin wrote: »

If it comes down to a Capitalist versus a Socialist, everything else, - personality, intelligence, political competence, will all be irrelevant.

The U.S.A. is not ready to elect a socialist President.

The current polls putting Sanders up against the leading Republican candidates do not agree.

RobertKK

Voters polls at the New Hampshire had 50% wanting an outsider as president.

There is a lot of delusion towards politicians in western societies.

LuckyLloyd

StewartGriffin wrote: »

If it comes down to a Capitalist versus a Socialist, everything else, - personality, intelligence, political competence, will all be irrelevant.

The U.S.A. is not ready to elect a socialist President.

It probably isn't ready to elect an anti free trade racist or someone as deeply conservative on social issues as Cruz either.

StewartGriffin

eire4 wrote: »

The current polls putting Sanders up against the leading Republican candidates do not agree.

As someone said before, things look a lot different in November.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It probably isn't ready to elect an anti free trade racist or someone as deeply conservative on social issues as Cruz either.

I think they are.

I remember 16 years ago when George W was running against Gore. Surely they won't actually elect that idiot. Holy ****, yes they can! Twice.

LuckyLloyd

StewartGriffin wrote: »

As someone said before, things look a lot different in November.



I think they are.

I remember 16 years ago when George W was running against Gore. Surely they won't actually elect that idiot. Holy ****, yes they can! Twice.

Bush was a poor candidate that lacked polish. But his platform was reasonably coherent and touched upon a number of key electoral concerns of the time. He was flayed in European / liberal leaning US media for being a buffoon and a gaff factory - but your are way off base to suggest he's in the same league as a Trump.

Similarly, while he was socially conservative and threw meat in the direction of evangelicals, a lot of that came out for the 2004 election. In 2000 he simply wasn't on the same plane of existence as Cruz's conservative platform.

If it's Trump versus Sanders, I'd bet heavily on the latter prevailing.

Junkyard Tom

StewartGriffin wrote: »

If it comes down to a Capitalist versus a Socialist

That's a false dilemma. 'Socialism' made American Capitalism great. The largest infrastructure project in human history was the US interstate Highways which was basically a massive government spending programme that created tens of thousands of jobs and benefited the Auto and Oil industries.

US public schooling and public funding of research in US universities (take a look at MIT's funding) is socialism at work.

The world's largest employer is the US Department of Defence War, 3.2 million people. The US DoD provides enormous financial subsidies to research institutes that end up benefiting the private sector.

IBM was on the brink of collapse when the US bought up its tabulating machines for the 'World's Biggest Bookkeeping Job' i.e. social security.

Also WWII was the making of the US aerospace industry. Boeing's long-range bombers laid the foundations for huge civilian aircraft.

The internet, GPS, the mirco-processor, touch screens etc all developed via socialism.

I could go on and on.

Overheal

StewartGriffin wrote: »

If it comes down to a Capitalist versus a Socialist, everything else, - personality, intelligence, political competence, will all be irrelevant.

The U.S.A. is not ready to elect a socialist President.

Are you sure? Because the last time America elected a socialist he won 4 consecutive terms.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

StewartGriffin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

If it's Trump versus Sanders, I'd bet heavily on the latter prevailing.

Fair enough. I'd bet the other way.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That's a false dilemma. 'Socialism' made American Capitalism great. The largest infrastructure project in human history was the US interstate Highways which was basically a massive government spending programme that created tens of thousands of jobs and benefited the Auto and Oil industries.

US public schooling and public funding of research in US universities (take a look at MIT's funding) is socialism at work.

The world's largest employer is the US Department of Defence War, 3.2 million people. The US DoD provides enormous financial subsidies to research institutes that end up benefiting the private sector.

IBM was on the brink of collapse when the US bought up its tabulating machines for the 'World's Biggest Bookkeeping Job' i.e. social security.

Also WWII was the making of the US aerospace industry. Boeing's long-range bombers laid the foundations for huge civilian aircraft.

The internet, GPS, the mirco-processor, touch screens etc all developed via socialism.

I could go on and on.

That's all very well thought out and explained, but to the average U.S. voter Capitalism is good, Socialism is bad. This is a nation where the right to bear arms is more important than healthcare. Distasteful and unethical as it is may be to to say it, there it is. The good guy doesn't always win. Democracy can be a bitch sometimes.

Junkyard Tom

StewartGriffin wrote: »

to the average U.S. voter Capitalism is good, Socialism is bad.

I'd say that's generally true in people of more senior years. Decrying someone or some thing as 'socialist' doesn't wield the negative connotative power it once did.

Also, the constant tripe the US corporate media spews can be easily by-passed by having an internet connection. Regardless, I don't think the course of the American ship can be changed from the top down so we won't be seeing any radical changes any time soon.

Overheal

And Carly Fiorina is out.

The GOP field is looking might thin now.

KingBrian2

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Fair enough. I'd bet the other way.



That's all very well thought out and explained, but to the average U.S. voter Capitalism is good, Socialism is bad. This is a nation where the right to bear arms is more important than healthcare. Distasteful and unethical as it is may be to to say it, there it is. The good guy doesn't always win. Democracy can be a bitch sometimes.

It will be interesting to see how Sanders and Trump formulate their polices in relation to the big banks. Both are opposed to the bailouts yet it was precisely this that kept the investors lending to the economy. If Sanders is elected his policies could chase away business and Switzerland could end up getting more banks domiciled there while Trump seems to hold many bankers in high regard besides it was not only the banks that caused such economic strain.

Black Swan

All 300 GOP and 300 Dem New Hampshire precincts have reported, 100% each, 10 February 2016, 3:41 PM EST.

Sanders 151,584 votes at 60% of Dems

Trump 100,406 votes at 35% of GOP

Obviously the GOP and Dems represent 2 different primary populations, and direct comparisons would be problematic, especially with the GOP votes being spread across more candidates than Dems.

oscarBravo

Black Swan wrote: »

All 300 GOP and 300 Dem New Hampshire precincts have reported, 100% each, 10 February 2016, 3:41 PM EST.

Sanders 151,584 votes at 60% of Dems

Trump 100,406 votes at 35% of GOP

Obviously the GOP and Dems represent 2 different primary populations, and direct comparisons would be problematic, especially with the GOP votes being spread across more candidates than Dems.

Politico shows 15 delegates each to Sanders and Clinton; anyone know why the last two haven't been awarded?

Manach

Offhand, would this be related to the superdelegates who are mostly cleaving to Clinton?

"
Sanders had won 13 delegates with his 20-point victory on Tuesday and is expected to raise that total to 15 by the time all of the votes are counted.

Two of the state’s 24 delegates are currently unpledged but will likely be awarded to Sanders once the results are finalized.

Clinton won nine delegates in the primary but came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates, who are state party insiders given the freedom to support any candidate they choose.
"
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/10/thanks-to-superdelegates-hillary-clinton-still-wins-after-getting-crushed-in-new-hampshire.html

Overheal

Sanders Camp is a few grand shy this hour of netting another $6 million in campaign contributions - in the last 24 hours.

$5,812,761 as of 4:57 pm EST, since polls closed in NH at 7pm last night.

BoJack Horseman

perhaps the unpledged delegates are to accommodate a floor candidate at the national convention?

otherwise they just side with the state winner on the day?

Akrasia

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how Sanders and Trump formulate their polices in relation to the big banks. Both are opposed to the bailouts yet it was precisely this that kept the investors lending to the economy. If Sanders is elected his policies could chase away business and Switzerland could end up getting more banks domiciled there while Trump seems to hold many bankers in high regard besides it was not only the banks that caused such economic strain.

Sanders is very clear on what he will do. He wants to implement a modern glass steagall act which will break up the 'Big banks' so that a small number of institutions cannot wield control over every aspect of the financial system.

Whether he would be able to succeed is a different story, to say there would be some resistance, is an understatement.

Will corporations try to move their operations to a different jurisdiction?
Yes, but this can be offset by regulations that ensure businesses who do business in the U.S. financial system have offices and are regulated by the U.S. financial authorities, and tax changes (that are way overdue) that prevent companies from declaring their profits in low tax regimes even where those profits were generated in the U.S.

While Sanders might not be able to reverse all the damage caused by the one sided trade agreements signed under previous administrations, At least he is much less likely to sign up to new agreements that would hand more power to corporate interests at the expense of sovereign nations and their citizens.

eire4

StewartGriffin wrote: »

As someone said before, things look a lot different in November.



I think they are.

I remember 16 years ago when George W was running against Gore. Surely they won't actually elect that idiot. Holy ****, yes they can! Twice.

To be fair the first time Bush lost the vote but won because of the electoral college and that is not even getting into the controversy over what happened in Florida.

Brian?

eire4 wrote: »

StewartGriffin wrote: »

As someone said before, things look a lot different in November.



I think they are.

I remember 16 years ago when George W was running against Gore. Surely they won't actually elect that idiot. Holy ****, yes they can! Twice.

To be fair the first time Bush lost the vote but won because of the electoral college and that is not even getting into the controversy over what happened in Florida.

Add your reply here.
Bush had actual experience of governance and was comparitively moderate compared to Trump.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Brian? wrote: »

Add your reply here.
Bush had actual experience of governance and was comparitively moderate compared to Trump.

And yet he was still the worst and most dangerous U.S. president in living memory

MadYaker

If think if Trump gets the nomination he's going to tone down a lot of his hyperbole. He isn't a stupid man and he knows that he won't win if deliberately alienates women and minorities.