2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Inquitus

Trump is going to crush it in Nevada!

Overheal

Well something is happening in Nevada

http://www.mediaite.com/online/shtshow-political-twitter-flooded-with-problems-arising-from-nevada-caucuses/

Photos show station volunteers wearing Trump clothing, ballots are reportedly not being counted properly, left in piles, shoved into envelopes, nobody is checking ID, in at least one case a person was able to vote for Trump twice.

Black Swan

Although the count has not been completed, NY Times is proclaiming a Trump win in Nevada at 10.15PM PT.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BoJack Horseman

Overheal wrote: »

Well something is happening in Nevada

http://www.mediaite.com/online/shtshow-political-twitter-flooded-with-problems-arising-from-nevada-caucuses/

Photos show station volunteers wearing Trump clothing, ballots are reportedly not being counted properly, left in piles, shoved into envelopes, nobody is checking ID, in at least one case a person was able to vote for Trump twice.

Hard to know what to make of it.

Wearing Trump apparel is no big deal imo.... all the volunteers are probably GOP members, so its a carnival for them... 'showing their colours' is probably no harm.

The vibe from this thread & the likes of John Oliver is that the concept of ID at the ballot box is some sort of heinous attack on democracy... so, what can one do!

flimsy disregard for ballots though is poor form.

Christy42

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Hard to know what to make of it.

Wearing Trump apparel is no big deal imo.... all the volunteers are probably GOP members, so its a carnival for them... 'showing their colours' is probably no harm.

The vibe from this thread & the likes of John Oliver is that the concept of ID at the ballot box is some sort of heinous attack on democracy... so, what can one do!

flimsy disregard for ballots though is poor form.

It makes it seem very unprofessional to have people wearing Trump gear at it though. It wouldn't be that hard to tell volunteers to wear a different shirt that day. I did note the sudden caring about ID being shown though I feel it should be mandatory anyway. Probably no particular foul but it raises questions and makes it seem like whoever ran it doesn't know what they are doing.

My main worry is how long to convince republicans to back out of the race to try and get anti Trump support behind a single candidate. If they wait too long they might be able to catch up.

I also fully expect Trump to mellow out by the real elections so many neutrals may forget about his statements at this point. I want him out of the race ASAP.

LuckyLloyd

Trump is going to win this nomination. There is still blah, blah from commentators about how this is a race and betting markets are reflecting a mere 60% chance of a Trump market but that is only because people continue to be incredulous that this could be happening. Make no mistake, it already HAS happened.

Rubio doesn't have a path that I can see and so long as himself and Cruz are neck and neck in second and third neither will drop allowing Trump's ~40% to clean up. 585 delegates go next Tuesday, of which Trump will garner 400 plus. In there Cruz will probably win Texas (crucially though without garnering the 50%+ to make the 155 delegates be apportioned winner takes all) and Rubio Virginia. Meaning they both struggle on. Then it's March 15th and Trump takes another huge chunk and it's too late, he's won.

Trump's last debate performance was that of a man already transitioning to running for the general too. Conventional wisdom says that he can't win a general without heavy spending and the support of the GOP machinery and Super PAC infrastructure but this very unconventional primary campaign has seen him spend relative buttons, have a weak ground game and not have a single Super PAC funded TV spot running for him.

He seems more than saavy enough to start taking positions that attack Clinton from her left. A fascinating year lies ahead.

LuckyLloyd

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Kasich is running for VP. So long as polls show him likely to win Ohio and with a shot to win Michigan he'll hang in so that he has influence at the convention. He could be a good running mate for Trump, shoring up the experience issues with the ticket.

Colonialboy

Black Swan wrote: »

If you were interviewing a candidate for the top position in your organisation, would you hire someone that has absolutely ZERO experience that pertains to the most important position responsibilities, basing the hire completely upon what comes out of his mouth? ....

Politics is littered with people who werent qualified getting elected to top positions.

Multi-national business is also littered with people getting appointed to CEO and board of director roles in industries they had no background in.

Trump has plenty experience.

Trump took 46% of Hispanics in Nevada.

JPNelsforearm

Trump crashing a Cruz/Beck rally. Just LOL, Beck blabbering on with the god stuff and literally everyone walks off to cheer Trump so he puts on his fedora and walks away. MSNBC who had a reporter there completely sidelined Beck and went straight to Trump. People consistently underestimate his popularity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GKrFo6cZWI

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/02/donald-trump-crashes-glen-beck-nevada-caucus-219703#ixzz413ACAwp0

Colonialboy

Alot of the people who said Trump could never win the nomination, are the same peopel who are saying Trump could never win the election.

Nate Silvers excellent fivethirtyeight site has all the numbers you need.
you just need to be open to how you interpret them.

look at how Trump has gone from 3% to 34% in a few short months.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/national-primary-polls/republican/

Colonialboy

Black Swan wrote: »

The latest bluster comment has distanced me from him completely, when he stated more than once "Torture works," consequently, a vote for Trump is a vote for torture.

Obama has 10 months left to enact on a promise he made 8 years ago as in close down Gitmo.. that is world class blustering .
And dont imply congress has been blocking him, he has plenty other routes including the Periodic Review Board in which he could have been reducing the number of detainees.

magma69

20% of Trump supporters disagreed with the freeing of slaves. Let that sink in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-supporters-for-intolerance.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

JPNelsforearm

magma69 wrote: »

20% of Trump supporters disagreed with the freeing of slaves. Let that sink in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-supporters-for-intolerance.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

"Public policy polling is a company aligned with the Democratic party...results over the years have been suspected of bias"

In other news Dr.Marlboro says cigarettes dont cause cancer..

vetinari

You have trouble believing that 20% of Trump supporters might disagree with the freeing of slaves?
There's plenty of bigots in Trump's support.

magma69

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

"Public policy polling is a company aligned with the Democratic party...results over the years have been suspected of bias"

In other news Dr.Marlboro says cigarettes dont cause cancer..

That result was YouGov poll, not public policy.

magma69

vetinari wrote: »

You have trouble believing that 20% of Trump supporters might disagree with the freeing of slaves?
There's plenty of bigots in Trump's support.

His point is completely moot anyhow, as I've addressed in the previous post.

JPNelsforearm

magma69 wrote: »

That result was YouGov poll, not public policy.

You're right, I speed read it. That is actually massively surprising, what is the party, state, national figures on that question for perspective. It just seems an absurdly large amount.

LuckyLloyd

vetinari wrote: »

You have trouble believing that 20% of Trump supporters might disagree with the freeing of slaves?
There's plenty of bigots in Trump's support.

In the Republican Party. Trump didn't create these people, they are the people that have urged their representatives and senators to do everything to block and frustrate that Kenyan Muslim who stole the whitehouse from achieving anything while there. Trump is just whipping them up, but the ingredients were put in place long before he decided to run.

Fr Tod Umptious

magma69 wrote: »

20% of Trump supporters disagreed with the freeing of slaves. Let that sink in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/upshot/measuring-donald-trumps-supporters-for-intolerance.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Yea let's go back to stuff that was topical in 1861.

By the way do you know why many Irish and Irish Americans living in the nortnern states were against slavery back in 1861 ?

Its not because they had any love for blacks or anything, its because slavery would take their jobs away.

Anyway politics has changed so much since then its totally irrelevant.
Back then the Democrats were the pro slavery party and the Republicans the abolishionists.

Now on something more relevant I believe that Trump got 40+% of the Hispanic vote in Nevada (will post link later)*
Good going for a racist and a bigot.

*BBC mention it here
US election 2016: The untold story of Donald Trump's win - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35651682

JPNelsforearm

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You're right, I speed read it. That is actually massively surprising, what is the party, state, national figures on that question for perspective. It just seems an absurdly large amount.

Most Republicans don't believe in evolution, so I don't see how 20% being against ending slavery is particularly surprising.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

In 2008 Obama was the popular candidate, selected by the nomination process who went on to win the election by a solid margin. The primary was tight but ultimately lost by Clinton, at least in part because she started the Muslim rumors.

On a more cheerful subject, regardless of how this election or the next 4-8 years go, I can look forward to the candidacy of Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Hillary won the popular vote and it was superdelegates that got Obama over the line. No need for revisionism.

Fr Tod Umptious

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

You're right, I speed read it. That is actually massively surprising, what is the party, state, national figures on that question for perspective. It just seems an absurdly large amount.

The poll was taken in South Carolina.
Yes that South Carolina, the one that was first to secede in 1861 after trying for about 10 years.
The one where the confederate battle flag flew over the state house for over 150 years.
I doubt its indicitave of the whole country.

Lirange

Deleted User wrote: »

Hillary won the popular vote and it was superdelegates that got Obama over the line. No need for revisionism.

You keep asserting this. But your contention is misleading at best.

Obama won more total votes than Clinton in the contests where they both appeared on the ballot. Clinton won the popular vote only if you count votes from Michigan, where Obama’s name did not appear on the ballot.

Any way you cut it, the candidates’ vote totals are within less than 1 percent of each other. Both candidates got roughly 18 million votes, but since four states don’t list official counts, the precise totals can’t be known.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

Ozymandius2011

A lot of people say Trump is not popular with the American people. This is very true. But what the Irish liberal media largely ignore is that Hillary is also unpopular. Her disapproval ratings in some polls are close to 60%. So it may come down to an election between two unpopular figures, which to me results in a low turnout which traditionally favours Republicans (as shown in the Congressional elections recently where turnout is lower).

Now it is true that Trump may have alienated Hispanics. On the other hand of the 8% of the Nevada GOP caucus turnout that was self identified Hispanic, most voted for Trump. So perhaps they distinguish between legal and illegal Hispanic immigration and don't take as much offence as the liberals would like to believe. Personally I think it will lose him a lot of Hispanic votes but even if it does, it is theoretically possible for a presidential candidate to win the White House while unpopular with minorities, though its a long time since it happened (Dubya Bush won 44% of Hispanics ans 12% of African American votes). Non-Hispanic Whites are 70% of the electorate, Blacks are 13%, Hispanics around 10% (in 2012), and Asian Americans around 5%. A poll I recently saw (I think Quinnipiac) showed Trump nationally has 12% of African American votes. Thats pretty much the traditional GOP share of that constitituency since Nixon (though it used to be 15% for much of that period). The GOP won around 60% of the White vote in the 2012 Presidential election. Trump would need to push that up a few % to maybe 65% to have a chance, unless he can manage to win over a minrity he hasn't offended yet, like African Americans. In fairness Trump supports Affirmative Action, and I've seen a few African Americans at his rallies on TV.

Colonialboy

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

In the Republican Party. Trump didn't create these people, they are the people that have urged their representatives and senators to do everything to block and frustrate that Kenyan Muslim who stole the whitehouse from achieving anything while there. Trump is just whipping them up, but the ingredients were put in place long before he decided to run.

Isnt that what democracy is about.
You urge your represenatatives to act on your behalf and beliefs.
Sounds like your not in favour of democracy or the checks and balances the founding fathers who wrote the constitution had in mind when the drafted it. Congress was always meant to be the more powerful body even with bicameralism.
The President is just one of three pillars of the US Govt, executive, judicial and legislative.

Obamas in for a rough few months, he will get blocked on appointing replacement to the supreme court for Scalia.
The first major thing Trump will do is get to appoint a Supreme court judge... now thats huge.

Black Swan

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Putin can kill and murder people all day long, everyone is afraid of him. It will take Trump to put him in his place.

"It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond," Trump said about Putin.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Putin... The guy commits war crimes and plans the murder of innocent people...

"Torture works," states Trump, which is also a war crime, and a crime between wars. A vote for Trump, is a vote for torture.

Lirange

Lirange wrote: »

You keep asserting this. But your contention is misleading at best.



http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/

Well she did. Take away her votes in Michigan and she was 50k behind. She dominated polling in the state and she got 328k votes in an uncontested primary. If 500k turned out for a contested primary then to make up the 50k she'd have to win 275-225 or 55%-45% which she was easily on course for.

eire4

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Yea let's go back to stuff that was topical in 1861.

By the way do you know why many Irish and Irish Americans living in the nortnern states were against slavery back in 1861 ?

Its not because they had any love for blacks or anything, its because slavery would take their jobs away.

Anyway politics has changed so much since then its totally irrelevant.
Back then the Democrats were the pro slavery party and the Republicans the abolishionists.

Now on something more relevant I believe that Trump got 40+% of the Hispanic vote in Nevada (will post link later)*
Good going for a racist and a bigot.

*BBC mention it here
US election 2016: The untold story of Donald Trump's win - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35651682

Time and time again in the US and many other countries many people vote against their own best interests. It does not change the fact that Trump is a racist and a bigot.

eire4

Colonialboy wrote: »

Isnt that what democracy is about.
You urge your represenatatives to act on your behalf and beliefs.
Sounds like your not in favour of democracy or the checks and balances the founding fathers who wrote the constitution had in mind when the drafted it. Congress was always meant to be the more powerful body even with bicameralism.
The President is just one of three pillars of the US Govt, executive, judicial and legislative.

Obamas in for a rough few months, he will get blocked on appointing replacement to the supreme court for Scalia.
The first major thing Trump will do is get to appoint a Supreme court judge... now thats huge.

The idea that the US congress works on behalf of the American people is laughable. Congress is so corrupt and dysfunctional it has little inclination to work in the best interests and for the will of the vast majority of Americans. The US system has been so corrupted by money particuarly since citizens united and mccutcheon that it in many ways acts more like a plutocratic oligarchy.