2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

KingBrian2

Rjd2 wrote: »

Bernie is finished whether we like him or not (I do!). New York will likely be a bloodbath and he will probably concede shortly after that.

Cracking article below which explains how little of a chance he has
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/



.


Nobody will switch from Hilary to Bernie when he is so far behind in popular votes especially once she has won New York.

Where does that leave the Bernie supporters? Are they just going to go back to being good Democrats again and voting Hillary?

Rjd2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Where does that leave the Bernie supporters? Are they just going to go back to being good Democrats again and voting Hillary?

Its fascinating what happens them. Quite a lot are fanatical about Bernie and genuinely dislike Clinton so its going to take a lot of smooth talking from Clinton and of course endorsements from Sanders to get them on side once he drops out.

However you'd expect the thought of Trump in power for a lot of them would be enough to mobilise them to vote for Clinton if somewhat reluctantly. The lesser evil etc:o

It will be the same for republicans who hate Trump, the idea of Clinton as president is surely their worst nightmare also.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Where does that leave the Bernie supporters? Are they just going to go back to being good Democrats again and voting Hillary?

Sanders will not suspend his campaign so long as his supporters fund him, and they continue to do so. Apparently he has 2 goals for his campaign, 1st to win the presidency, and 2nd to continue to transmit his progressive agenda given the enhanced visibility of a presidential campaign. Methinks he will fail to achieve his 1st goal, but succeed in this 2nd.

The Randy Riverbeast

Clinton would mean business as usual, if they want change they might look to Trump, if you're going down might as well take everything with you. The more articulate Trump supporters I've read about online seem to be of this mindset as well. We've seen how well congress can hamper a president, their system is designed to contain someone like Trump. Would be far more entertaining to watch from a distance too.

eire4

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Where does that leave the Bernie supporters? Are they just going to go back to being good Democrats again and voting Hillary?

To be fair a good chunk of his support is coming from Independents and not Democrats. It is one of the reasons in closed primaries he has a harder time in doing well in those contests.

KingBrian2

eire4 wrote: »

To be fair a good chunk of his support is coming from Independents and not Democrats. It is one of the reasons in closed primaries he has a harder time in doing well in those contests.

Not Independents like Bloomberg himself a Billionaire who has links to both parties. Another reminder to all those Republicans is that former Mayor Giuliani has endorsed candidate Trump so New York state could see voters change sides from Democrat to Republican from Republican to Independent.

JPNelsforearm

Black Swan wrote: »

Sanders will not suspend his campaign so long as his supporters fund him, and they continue to do so. Apparently he has 2 goals for his campaign, 1st to win the presidency, and 2nd to continue to transmit his progressive agenda given the enhanced visibility of a presidential campaign. Methinks he will fail to achieve his 1st goal, but succeed in this 2nd.

The second is wishful thinking if Ron Paul is anything to go by, once the leader goes, the movement dies.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not Independents like Bloomberg himself a Billionaire who has links to both parties. Another reminder to all those Republicans is that former Mayor Giuliani has endorsed candidate Trump so New York state could see voters change sides from Democrat to Republican from Republican to Independent.

New York will vote democrat in the presidential election. Hillary has more sway there than Giulio but they would vote for a goat over a decent Republican candidate (and there are none of them with a chance left).
Part of me hopes most Sanders supporters are smart enough to realise change for the sake of change is a terrible idea. Good types of change are needed. This might be too hopeful. I do also hope whst Sanders is fighting for takes root in the population. We shall see.

ancapailldorcha

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The second is wishful thinking if Ron Paul is anything to go by, once the leader goes, the movement dies.

I don't know. Sanders has tapped into frustration at stagnant wages and unemployment. These are widely felt among many people outside his fanbase, principally among Trump's supporters. At this stage, while he might be out of the running all but mathematically, he's already started his movement.

Black Swan

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Clinton would mean business as usual, if they want change they might look to Trump

Methinks Sanders supporters are the last persons on Earth that would shift to Trump, given that the Sanders political agenda demands that rich people like Trump pay more taxes and not be allowed to use their money for influencing politicians or buying elections.

Akrasia

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know. Sanders has tapped into frustration at stagnant wages and unemployment. These are widely felt among many people outside his fanbase, principally among Trump's supporters. At this stage, while he might be out of the running all but mathematically, he's already started his movement.

Elizabeth Warren will be Bernie's protege for 2020 (not that she needs a mentor)

Whether Clinton or Cruz/Trump win this election, there is that yearning for real change from the under 40s in the Democratic party that will be unfilled, and probably stoked should the next president do something regressive during his/her first term. (and given the candidates that's a certainty)


That said, I still won't write off Sanders. July is 4 months away. Sanders isn't quitting before the convention, and Clinton has that pesky criminal investigation hanging over her head, as well as possible panama connections and the possibility that her husband might say something stupid to piss off voters before California..

Add to this, the fact that the closer it gets to the convention, the more the republicans will attack clinton on the very many attackable elements of her past, and we multiple stumbling blocks for a candidate that has already failed to win a convention despite having won the popular vote,

The problem with Clinton is that the more people know about her, the less they like her. The problem with Sanders, is that he is popular with voters, but hated by the majority of the Media , so he is more popular the more people hear about him, but the media doesn't cover his policies, or events, and when they do talk about him, it's often an inaccurate smear.

Akrasia

Black Swan wrote: »

Methinks Sanders supporters are the last persons on Earth that would shift to Trump, given that the Sanders political agenda demands that rich people like Trump pay more taxes and not be allowed to use their money for influencing politicians or buying elections.

I can see a certain percentage of Trump fans supporting Sanders, but I can't see very many Sanders fans supporting Trump.

It's more likely that many Sanders supporters would vote for a third party candidate like Jill Stein (green party) or Gary Johnson (libertarian)

But more likely, they'll vote for Clinton, because Sanders isn't stupid, and he's not vindictive, he'll endorse Clinton and call for all of his supporters to go to the polls and vote for her and the democratic congress and senate candidate in their state. Sanders knows that Hillary will probably be 4 wasted years of obamanomics, but Trump/Cruz would be 4 years going backwards with the distinct possibility of disaster

Meanwhile, Sanders and Warren will be building a base of popular support trying to get Hillary to focus on important issues like climate change, wealth inequality and political transparency with the aim of winning the 2020 nomination.

(incumbents usually win the party nomination if going for re-election, but if the president is unpopular and the republican candidate is strong, stranger things have happened.)

Akrasia

Even if Clinton isn't implicated by the Panama papers themselves, the increased scrutiny on tax avoidance schemes has shown that the Clintons are directly linked to 1209 North Orange Street.

1209 North Orange Street is an address that is registered with 285,000 shell companies. The reason Panama might not be showing many U.S. tax dodgers, is possibly because they can get a better tax dodge at home.

These are shell companies where the Clintons filter their 'consultancy fees' to avoid scrutiny or transparency, and possibly to avoid taxes.

Given that the Clintons have 'fund-raised' over 3 billion dollars over their careers, the mere existence of shell companies attached to them should raise huge concerns.

The Clinton foundation is a registered charity so it's exempt from tax, so are these shell companies set up to hide donors to the foundation, or to avoid personal taxes for the 1 billion dollars the Clintons have 'earned' in 'consultancy fees' and paid speeches.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/delaware-address-home-200000-shell-companies-including-hillary-clintons/

KingBrian2

You guys keep talking about Clinton and Bernie competing over the Democratic voters yes that is true but huge number of Republicans are unhappy with the way this election went with none of their candidates having gone any further with the exception of the Texan Cruz. Local Trump has a large camp of supporters in New York non affiliated to any party.

KingBrian2

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You guys keep talking about Clinton and Bernie competing over the Democratic voters yes that is true but huge number of Republicans are unhappy with the way this election went with none of their candidates having gone any further with the exception of the Texan Cruz. Local Trump has a large camp of supporters in New York non affiliated to any party.

Well that's a real pity if his supporters are unaffiliated because they'll not be able to vote for him in New York. 2 of his kids are 2 such examples.

hatrickpatrick

Black Swan wrote: »

Methinks Sanders supporters are the last persons on Earth that would shift to Trump, given that the Sanders political agenda demands that rich people like Trump pay more taxes and not be allowed to use their money for influencing politicians or buying elections.

I've seen many Sanders supporters suggesting that they will support Trump if Sanders doesn't get the nomination. Reasons range from Trump's apparently tamer foreign policy and his stances on corruption in politics, to "#BernItDown", a particularly radical group which would rather see the political system collapse under the havoc created by a Trump presidency than see the status quo continue.

As an outsider, I'm honestly not sure which camp I fall into. Both Trump and Clinton are opposed to my "red line" beliefs (Clinton on corporate money and on NSA surveillance, Trump on torture and immigration, etc) so it's a question of determining the lesser of two evils. Certainly from a purely foreign policy perspective Trump is probably safer and less likely to promote Bush doctrine "Governments do what America tells them, or else" like Clinton. His rhetoric might suggest otherwise, but Clinton's actual record suggests that she very much subscribes to this supremacist agenda, and well, f*ck that.

briany

Why isn't Trump the Republican dream candidate? He loves big business, would probably do whatever his advisers tell him, appeals to lower class white voters, flip flops masterfully (or in a decidedly DGAF fashion). The idea that he would become president and become the equivalent of a political wrecking ball is way off. I see him as George W. Bush 2.0 (or actually, Dick Cheney), more outspoken, and less pandering to the Christian right, but very much a desirable candidate for the Republican party.

The Sanders campaign has been marked by this rejection of money and power in politics. I'm not saying that Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for Trump, I'm just saying that it's ironic that they would be voting the lobbyist right into the big chair. I suppose it would at least cut out the middle man.

Christy42

briany wrote: »

Why isn't Trump the Republican dream candidate? He loves big business, would probably do whatever his advisers tell him, appeals to lower class white voters, flip flops masterfully (or in a decidedly DGAF fashion). The idea that he would become president and become the equivalent of a political wrecking ball is way off. I see him as George W. Bush 2.0 (or actually, Dick Cheney), more outspoken, and less pandering to the Christian right, but very much a desirable candidate for the Republican party.

The Sanders campaign has been marked by this rejection of money and power in politics. I'm not saying that Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for Trump, I'm just saying that it's ironic that they would be voting the lobbyist right into the big chair. I suppose it would at least cut out the middle man.

Why would he listen to advisers? They have no idea what he would do themselves. As far as they know he might even try and build that wall!
He could destroy a lot of the credibility the US has with foreign powers. You have seen what he has been willing to say on the campaign trail, what might he be willing to say to foreign dignitaries?

He also might highlight the divide between those economically conservative and those religiously conservative a lot more than others have. They don't want it shown how different parts of their party are to each other (democrats have similar issues but no candidate overly highlights the issue at present).

KingBrian2

Christy42 wrote: »

Why would he listen to advisers? They have no idea what he would do themselves. As far as they know he might even try and build that wall!
He could destroy a lot of the credibility the US has with foreign powers. You have seen what he has been willing to say on the campaign trail, what might he be willing to say to foreign dignitaries?

He also might highlight the divide between those economically conservative and those religiously conservative a lot more than others have. They don't want it shown how different parts of their party are to each other (democrats have similar issues but no candidate overly highlights the issue at present).

It is good to go after those powers in case you not aware North Korea threatens South Korea and Japan every week. Pakistan sheltered Osama Bin Laden for the entire period of the Bush presidency. America has plenty of scores to settle with flawed intelligence agencies when it comes to going after Al Qaeda.

Billy86

briany wrote: »

Why isn't Trump the Republican dream candidate? He loves big business, would probably do whatever his advisers tell him, appeals to lower class white voters, flip flops masterfully (or in a decidedly DGAF fashion). The idea that he would become president and become the equivalent of a political wrecking ball is way off. I see him as George W. Bush 2.0 (or actually, Dick Cheney), more outspoken, and less pandering to the Christian right, but very much a desirable candidate for the Republican party.

The Sanders campaign has been marked by this rejection of money and power in politics. I'm not saying that Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for Trump, I'm just saying that it's ironic that they would be voting the lobbyist right into the big chair. I suppose it would at least cut out the middle man.

That's what has really amazed me about Trump voters and their logical inconsistencies, when they cite 'getting rid of corporate influence' as one of their main points. That would be like in 2008 saying the number one thing you don't want is for a black guy to be in the White House, and deciding that voting for Obama would be the best way to keep a black guy out of the White House.

hatrickpatrick

briany wrote: »

The Sanders campaign has been marked by this rejection of money and power in politics. I'm not saying that Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for Trump, I'm just saying that it's ironic that they would be voting the lobbyist right into the big chair. I suppose it would at least cut out the middle man.

If they're offered a choice between the two candidates, one of whom supports some positions that they despise and the other of whom supports many more positions that they despise, the former will obviously be the lesser of two evils. So again, it depends which particular ideologies are red line issues for those voters, which is why it'll be a split.

hatrickpatrick

Billy86 wrote: »

That's what has really amazed me about Trump voters and their logical inconsistencies, when they cite 'getting rid of corporate influence' as one of their main points. That would be like in 2008 saying the number one thing you don't want is for a black guy to be in the White House, and deciding that voting for Obama would be the best way to keep a black guy out of the White House.

Their counter argument is that Trump is already filthy rich, ergo he doesn't need bribes, ergo he can't be bought by anyone other than himself. So he's likely to stick to his platform once elected as opposed to selling out, as Hillary Clinton is pretty much guaranteed to.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It is good to go after those powers in case you not aware North Korea threatens South Korea and Japan every week. Pakistan sheltered Osama Bin Laden for the entire period of the Bush presidency. America has plenty of scores to settle with flawed intelligence agencies when it comes to going after Al Qaeda.

I was more thinking along the lines of Germany or France who are allies. Also one if Trump's selling points is that people think he might be less aggressive against the states you named than others. I.E. less involvement in the affairs of other countries.

Black Swan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I've seen many Sanders supporters suggesting that they will support Trump if Sanders doesn't get the nomination.

This is all anecdotal and not research based, but I too know many Sanders supporters who would never vote for extraordinarily wealthy since birth Trump, who exemplifies the tiny percentage of obscenely privileged billionaires that are used to buying anything they want (including this presidency). Most of them do not like Hillary Clinton either, so many of them will more than likely stay home 8 November 2016 if it's Clinton vs Trump, or if they vote, they may cast their ballot for a 3rd party candidate that they know cannot win in this corrupt 2-party dominated system.

For those who still think Sanders has a shot just read this. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Apr13.html#item-8 Seriously, read it. Take it in.

Billy86

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Their counter argument is that Trump is already filthy rich, ergo he doesn't need bribes, ergo he can't be bought by anyone other than himself. So he's likely to stick to his platform once elected as opposed to selling out, as Hillary Clinton is pretty much guaranteed to.

That's the thing though - he doesn't need bribes because he is the bribe, and would be the one doing the bribing if he were not in office. Now he can do whatever he likes without having to bribe anyone to achieve it, were he to win the election.

vetinari

Deleted User wrote: »

For those who still think Sanders has a shot just read this. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Apr13.html#item-8 Seriously, read it. Take it in.

There's nothing new in that.
It also doesn't mean that he doesn't has a shot.
He needs to make up about 250 pledged delegates.
That's certainly still possible.

vetinari

vetinari wrote: »

There's nothing new in that.
It also doesn't mean that he doesn't has a shot.
He needs to make up about 250 pledged delegates.
That's certainly still possible.

It's possible that despite being 27 and very overweight that I might yet win a World Cup playing for Ireland. That's about how likely it is. If after the next tranche of votes which are almost all closed primaries which are Sanders' least strong suit, as well as being demographically good for Clinton even if Sanders pulled off a complete miracle and matches her he's still be 250 behind with about a thousand delegates to go. He would have to win those by a more than a 60:40 margin. Of those delegates about half are in California. Again if Sanders does miraculously well he'd split those, meaning he'd have to win the other states about a 3:1 margin. Places like Guam, Puerto Rico and New Mexico.

It's done, it's amazing that people are pretending otherwise.

keane2097

Sanders is 11/2 to win the democratic nomination. I don't think you are 11/2 to win a World Cup with Ireland.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

For those who still think Sanders has a shot just read this. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Apr13.html#item-8 Seriously, read it. Take it in.

But ultimately it is about delegates and there she is way ahead and after New York and the Mid-Atlantic states vote in April, she will be even further ahead. (V)

Any statement built on prophetic presumption is at best a theory, not a fact.