2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amazingfun

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And worse still, did not the Clintons become rich, due to their involvement in politics?

And just an aside, but had Bernie really stuck it to Hillary during one of the early debates where she was being grilled over the FBI investigation of her criminal email activity, instead of playing the fool and minimizing it, I think he'd be much father ahead now.

Amazingfun

Amazingfun wrote: »

he'd be much father ahead now.

Kind of implies he's ahead as it stands.

Amazingfun

Deleted User wrote: »

Kind of implies he's ahead as it stands.

Nah, just in reference to his Michigan win really. People are getting excited about him again based on it, if my twitter feed means anything

He looked weak and silly when he white-knighted for Hillary in that instance, he ought to have hammered her on it when he had the chance, or at least stood aside and let the media do it.

oscarBravo

Amazingfun wrote: »

He looked weak and silly when he white-knighted for Hillary in that instance, he ought to have hammered her on it when he had the chance, or at least stood aside and let the media do it.

Not everyone measures their politicians by the sole yardstick of how nasty they're capable of being.

Amazingfun

oscarBravo wrote: »

Not everyone measures their politicians by the sole yardstick of how nasty they're capable of being.

And not everyone equates holding someone to account for their actions, actions which warranted the involvement of the FBI, as "nasty".

Amazingfun

Amazingfun wrote: »

Nah, just in reference to his Michigan win really. People are getting excited about him again based on it, if my twitter feed means anything

He looked weak and silly when he white-knighted for Hillary in that instance, he ought to have hammered her on it when he had the chance, or at least stood aside and let the media do it.

Funny enough "attacking" women candidates is a big no-no most of the time.

oscarBravo

Amazingfun wrote: »

And not everyone equates holding someone to account for their actions, actions which warranted the involvement of the FBI, as "nasty".

Holding her to account is the FBI's job. "Hammering on her", as you put it, is something that not everyone admires as a political tactic.

The GOP decided to avoid looking "weak and silly" by "holding her to account" for Benghazi. How did that work out for them?

Amazingfun

Deleted User wrote: »

Funny enough "attacking" women candidates is a big no-no most of the time.

:pac:
Something tells me this won't apply to Trump should he be given the glorious opportunity to go one on one with her in future debates. She will be in the Rosie O'Donnell category, fair game! And that is how it ought to be, really.

Amazingfun

oscarBravo wrote: »

Holding her to account is the FBI's job. "Hammering on her", as you put it, is something that not everyone admires as a political tactic.

The GOP decided to avoid looking "weak and silly" by "holding her to account" for Benghazi. How did that work out for them?

You keep saying "not everyone", and yet many others DO appreciate a more robust approach.........so what? And as for Benghazi, the soldiers involved have just endorsed Trump. This issue is far from forgotten for many.

oscarBravo

Amazingfun wrote: »

You keep saying "not everyone", and yet many others DO appreciate a more robust approach.........so what?

I'm just disagreeing with you. It's a discussion forum; people are going to disagree with you sometimes.

And as for Benghazi, the soldiers involved have just endorsed Trump. This issue is far from forgotten for many.

I see that two of the security contractors involved have endorsed Trump, yes. How that justifies the egregious waste of taxpayers' money that was the GOP's attempt to find something - anything! - to pin on Hillary is beyond me.

jobbridge4life

Amazingfun wrote: »

:pac:
Something tells me this won't apply to Trump should he be given the glorious opportunity to go one on one with her in future debates. She will be in the Rosie O'Donnell category, fair game! And that is how it ought to be, really.

It ought to be fair game to viciously (and without any sense of self-awareness) attack her based on her appearance?

If you want a slagging match or insult comedy go see a drag show.

oscarBravo

jobbridge4life wrote: »

If you want a slagging match or insult comedy go see a drag show.

...or a GOP debate.

Billy86

Amazingfun wrote: »

:pac:
Something tells me this won't apply to Trump should he be given the glorious opportunity to go one on one with her in future debates. She will be in the Rosie O'Donnell category, fair game! And that is how it ought to be, really.

Negative political is is the opposite of what "it really ought to be" but clearly some voters feed off on it and want a soap opera rather than a government.

Billy86

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm just disagreeing with you. It's a discussion forum; people are going to disagree with you sometimes. I see that two of the security contractors involved have endorsed Trump, yes. How that justifies the egregious waste of taxpayers' money that was the GOP's attempt to find something - anything! - to pin on Hillary is beyond me.

Well here's your answer, it's the same reason some people want the Lannisters to get their come uppance on Game of Thrones and the same reason despise that Swedish guy on Mr Robot (awesome show by the way for anyone interested)... Some people have no interest in policy of governance, and all of the interest in soap opera dramas and "oh no she di'unt!!" shock moments and revelations.

eire4

Amazingfun wrote: »

Wonderful night for Trump, really enjoyed his rubbing Mitt Romney's face in his array of still-available Trump products during the presser, lol.

Right now, I am watching a very uncomfortable Wassermann-Schultz try and spin Hillary's disastrous results in Michigan.....yes, it's worth the loss of beauty sleep

Ahh yes the very same Wasserman-Schultz who supports TPP and recently co-sponsored a bill that would gut funding for the consumer financial protection bureau.

JPNelsforearm

The establishment Republicans would rather lose the election(as they have lost every other "battle") then have a President the dont control. This is hilarious, how to blow up your base and tear your party apart, if only the Republicans had their own Hillary Clinton..

"At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump
Karl Rove shared focus group findings that give hope to the GOP establishment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d

"Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute's annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering.

The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he "cannot support Donald Trump."

Philip Anschutz, the billionaire GOP donor whose company owns a stake in Sea Island, was also there, along with Democratic Rep. John Delaney, who represents Maryland. Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, was there, too, a Times spokeswoman confirmed.

eire4

Deleted User wrote: »

What Sanders momentum? He fell further behind.
I'm not at a computer so finding opinion poll data is awkward.
However the big prize next week is Florida and it's a closed primary which is bad for Sanders.
Illinois is open but any gain there will be offset by the other open primary in Missouri.
North Carolina is for Hillary while Ohio one would expect to be but given the Michigan result perhaps not.

There is no question Clinton is still in the box seat on the Democratic side but last nights loss in Michigan was a massive loss for her. She was up by 11 point in monmouths poll on Monday the eve of the primary and in polls in the 2 weeks previous she was up in the mid to upper teens. She may still be in the lead but clearly last night was a blow to her. It was the frist time Sanders won a major state with a diverse population and he did it against all the predictions. How will that translate going forward when more and more states that favour Sanders coming into play and less and less that favour Clinton who has depended on her southern state dominace so far only time will tell.
Next Tuesdays a big night as its a lot of big states and its probably the last night when Clinton goes into things with built in advantages such as in Florida which you righly point out. Again the polls suggest Clinton will wipe out Sanders next Tuesday but Michigan defintely puts some doubt into those assumptions.


Florida 61-34 Clinton CNN
Ohio 63-33 Clinton CNN
North Carolina 57-34 Clinton CNN
Illinois 67-25 Clinton Chicago Tribune
Missouri 53-25 Clinton PPP


Those numbers above all suggest that Clinton will romp home next Tuesday. I guess we will just have to see how things go. In the meantime there is also another Democratic debate upcoming in Miami on tonight I believe. A lot of people seemed to think Clinton clearly won the debate in Flint Michigan clearly the voters thought otherwise. This debate considering the current state of the Democratic race looks pretty big for both candidates right now.


All along it has been just assumed Clinton would win the Democratic nomination and the above numbers suggests she will still but losing a big diverse state like Michigan raises qustion marks about those assumptions.

Billy86

Not that is really means anything, but Clinton's odds on Paddy Power (to win the nomination) have got longer in the last 24 hours - from 1/12 (if I recall) yesterday to 1/16 today. Bernie's odds went from 14/1, now down to 18/1.

eire4

Akrasia wrote: »

I think the chances are about the same as Ireland beating New Zealand for the first time in Rugby this November.

It's possible, but a lot of things need to go in our favour to make it happen.

The odds of a Sanders win will change heavily depending on what happens next Tuesday.

I would agree with that he needs to win somehow 2 states out of the 5 voting next Tuesday to stay in this race with a shot at winning. Based on current polls its hard to see where that happens. But that was what was said before Michigan. The question is will Michigan have a snowball effect or was it an one off. There is no question though Michigan was a stunning upset last night and has raised the possibility that Clinton is not actually a sure thing.

jobbridge4life

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The establishment Republicans would rather lose the election(as they have lost every other "battle") then have a President the dont control. This is hilarious, how to blow up your base and tear your party apart, if only the Republicans had their own Hillary Clinton..

"At Secretive Meeting, Tech CEOs And Top Republicans Commiserate, Plot To Stop Trump
Karl Rove shared focus group findings that give hope to the GOP establishment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d

"Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute's annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering.

The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he "cannot support Donald Trump."

Philip Anschutz, the billionaire GOP donor whose company owns a stake in Sea Island, was also there, along with Democratic Rep. John Delaney, who represents Maryland. Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, was there, too, a Times spokeswoman confirmed.

You can't stop Trump you can only beat him... If its Trump for the Republicans and Hillary for the Democrats then its Huntsman 2016 for the Whitehouse!

(in my dreams)

eire4

ebbsy wrote: »

Re the brokered convention, I think the main thing the Republicans have to remember is that they lost the last two elections.

They will put forward the candidate that has the best chance of winning.

Yes they lost the last 2 presidential elections but Republicans have dominated everything else in the last few cycles to the point they control both the House and the Senate the house by a large margin. At the state level they lead Democrats by huge margins in controlling both the state house and senate 31-11 and holding 32 of the 50 state governorships.

Magnate

Billy86 wrote: »

Not that is really means anything, but Clinton's odds on Paddy Power (to win the nomination) have got longer in the last 24 hours - from 1/12 (if I recall) yesterday to 1/16 today. Bernie's odds went from 14/1, now down to 18/1.

Bernie's odds to win overall?

They were 20/1 last night down to 14/1 today, not sure about the nomination odds but he's currently 7/1 for that.

538's final polling average had Clinton ahead by 21.3 percentage points so it was definitely a major upset.

B_Wayne

Colonialboy wrote: »

Billionaire owner of the Patriots Robert Kraft, Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, all coming out in recent weeks to praise Trump and even have him over for dinner.
Probably the first time anyone has ever implied they are poorly educated culchies.

Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were big fans of Hitler, intelligent people can hold horrible views and support pretty terrible people......

eire4

Magnate wrote: »

Bernie's odds to win overall?

They were 20/1 last night down to 14/1 today, not sure about the nomination odds but he's currently 7/1 for that.

538's final polling average had Clinton ahead by 21.3 percentage points so it was definitely a major upset.

No doubt about it nobody saw Sanders winning Michigan last night. Will it prove to be the turning point in Sanders going on to win the nomination which would be an even bigger upset then his Michigan win last night the odds would suggest not. But there is no question it has raised doubts about Clinton and her winning the Democratic nomination is not a sure thing anymore. The latest national polls had Clinton up by 9 points according to NBC while ABC had Clinton up by 7 points. Thats a tightening of the race nationally as well and that was from March 6 before Michigan.

jobbridge4life

Actor, Fringe-Righty (and co-progenator of Angelina Jolie, so we can forgive all else) Jon Voight explained his enthusaism for Trump... 'Donald is funny, playful, and colorful'. Ya'll are hoping a primary school puppet show wins the Presidency... and lets be clear the emphasis is on Punch.

Inquitus

On a side note, Trump's steaks look great.

Tuesday will be a real key night in the race, it could seal the deal for Trump, it's likely to be the end of Rubio, could keep Kasich alive to plot a path to convention trickery.

Trump got 45min of primetime coverage on all the major news networks live last night while they ignored Clinton, Kasich and Sander's speechs, the reason the guy has to spend bugger all and is winning big is because he is Box Office, hard for the rest to complete against Wall to Wall Trump.

Billy86

Magnate wrote: »

Bernie's odds to win overall?

They were 20/1 last night down to 14/1 today, not sure about the nomination odds but he's currently 7/1 for that.

538's final polling average had Clinton ahead by 21.3 percentage points so it was definitely a major upset.

Argh! I was looking at Biden, only took a glance at work and never even figured for them to be taking bets on anyone but Clinton/Sanders at this point.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Someone earlier had suggested that Trump would gain Sanders voters if the Dems did not select Sanders, which I felt was highly improbable given that the Sanders political platform was against the concentration of wealth by a tiny few multi-millionaires and billionaires like wealthy Trump. Consequently, if Sanders is not nominated, then I would suspect that many of those Sanders voters will stay home and not vote for Hillary Clinton or Trump.

LuckyLloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

Republicans are in a no-win really. After next week it's all winner-take-all and he should start extending his lead.
He's supposedly on track for 115% of the required delegates so it'll take a lot to stop him. Even if he falls just short and they go for the brokered convention he can run as an Independent. And who knows then? No one's excited about Hillary, a huge amount will basically boycott the GoP then plenty of amgry people can vote for Trump. Just winning 2 or 3 big States would give a good chance of the next president being selected by Congress. Would the incoming Congress be Republican enough to get one of their own in after a poor showing due to their choosing another candidate?

Nope. He simply won't get on the ballot in the vast majority of states at that point. Bloomberg announced he wasn't running this week because it is decision time for any independent candidate - you would have to get your legal team engaged NOW to get widespread ballot access for the presidency.

He might still run in some fashion by trying to piggy back on a smaller party with some ballot access already in place or advocate write ins from his supporters but he wouldn't be winning any states imo.

This is ridiculous of course - but that's the way the two parties have the system locked up with ballot laws. They make it as difficult as possible to run third party or independent.

Billy86

B_Wayne wrote: »

Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were big fans of Hitler, intelligent people can hold horrible views and support pretty terrible people......

Don't forget William Randolph Hearst, JFK's dad, Allen Dulles (CIA head with a big airport named after him in Washington DC), John Rockefeller, George Bush Snr's dad, the list goes on and on!