2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amazingfun

Akrasia wrote: »

Hillary and Trump are both unpopular, but it's a different kind of intensity.

Lots of people think Hillary is just typical lying scheming politician who'll say whatever she thinks people want to hear

But the people who dislike trump think he's a monster who could destroy the country.

Trump's unpopularity will cause people to vote for Hillary, while Hillary's unpopularity will cause people to stay at home or vote third party, or even vote through gritted teeth for her despite not liking her, just to stop Trump from winning.

The only way Trump can beat her, is to make Hillary just as unpopular as he is. so it would likely be a hilariously vicious and attack oriented campaign that will energise Trump's 'straight talkin' base, while raising doubts about Hillary's moral character

I think you are very wrong about that. Hillary is the monster, and she is deeply hated by many, including a lot of "Bernie Bros".
I predict Trump will crush her, and truly, I cannot wait. Just hope he doesn't somehow get shanked at the convention, but that is looking more and more unlikely as each day passes, thank God

Fr Tod Umptious

Akrasia wrote: »

Democrats need to appeal to minorities because that's their traditional base, about 40% of democrat voters are from 'minority' groups. Republicans don't care about minorities because only 11% of their voters are 'minorities'

http://www.gallup.com/poll/160373/democrats-racially-diverse-republicans-mostly-white.aspx

The problem is that in the general election, all the independents come into play and about 30% of 'independent' voters are 'minorities' of which the majority (16%) are Hispanics and this vote can be enough to swing an election

Trump is already hugely unpopular amongst women and liberals, and minorities, and when you add those people together, it's way more than 50% of the population

He needs broader support to win a general election, or else he needs a competitor who's even less popular than he is, or some other way of splitting the vote so that his base can win a plurality (third party candidacies)

But Trump is also getting support from white groups that would usually vote Dem.

Labour Unions for example, I posted a piece here a while back about unions in MA supporting Trump.

These would be blue collar, mainly white, many Irish American actually, sprong supporters of local police and military, and well organised.

They prefer Trump because they are not that keen on immigration and are sick and tired of the Dems pandering to the likes of the SJWs.

Christy42

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But Trump is also getting support from white groups that would usually vote Dem.

Labour Unions for example, I posted a piece here a while back about unions in MA supporting Trump.

These would be blue collar, mainly white, many Irish American actually, sprong supporters of local police and military, and well organised.

They prefer Trump because they are not that keen on immigration and are sick and tired of the Dems pandering to the likes of the SJWs.

There is something hilarious about Irish Americans being anti immigration. Anyway it is only the conservative aspects of those groups. The vast majority of unions and minority groups will vote Dem.

Black Swan

Next GOP primaries occur 26 April 2016:

• Connecticut 28 delegates
• Delaware 16 delegates
• Maryland 38 delegates
• Pennsylvania 71 delegates
• Rhode Island 19 delegates

Total 5 states GOP delegates = 172

511

Christy42 wrote: »

There is something hilarious about Irish Americans being anti immigration.

There isn't because they were legal immigrants when they entered. Most Irish Americans would still be in favour of it, as long as it's legal immigration but they're also losing jobs to low skilled immigrants who will work for lower wages. Even Bernie Sanders is against low skilled immigration because the corporate elite exploit them to drive down wages, which means more money for the rich and less money for everyone else. It's a pity the Americans don't have to cop-on to vote for him because he's the most outstanding candidate for the job.

Furthermore, Irish-American communities (ghettos) were riddled with poverty and crime, which is not acceptable as they're dangerous to travel into and require massive subsidies from tax-payers, but us Europeans refuse to learn for America's mistakes and want to allow ghettos to form here.

The Americans have far more experience with mass immigration than we do and that's why there's strong support for borders controls over there.

12Phase

If the polls are anything to go by, Clinton has it by a fairly clear margin. She's really going to have to do something totally crazy to lose this one.

The poll of polls is putting it at 48.8% (Clinton) vs 39.5% (Trump).

She's far from the ideal candidate for left wing voters, as she's seen very much an old-establishment Democrat. I think the Simpsons lampoon that aspect of the party with Mayor Quimby. They're kind of the Fianna Fail of American politics.

Trump on the other hand is probably frightening the horses to a large extent by being too war mongering, too violent and too conservative on a range of issues.

I think you need to be very careful not to mis-read American opinions via the lens of Fox News and international coverage which tends to seize upon the 'redneck' image as it's easy to ridicule.

Trump may well have ignited the passions of his own supporters, but he's also ignited the passions of a lot of people who will go out of their way to campaign against him and vote against him. I wouldn't even be surprised if some Republicans might cross the lines and vote Clinton just because of absolute hatred of Trump.

One of the biggest problems in the Republican Party is that conservative doesn't necessarily fit well with religious fundamentalist. There are a lot of more Reaganite type Republicans, especially in the North East and in California etc who would be fiscal conservatives but quite horrified by the Christian fundamentalist aspect of the party and they also don't really know what to make of Trump.

Then you've got Christian fundamentalists who are actually strongly in favour of heavy-handed state interference in day-to-day life and don't really quite fit into the Republican agenda either. Some of those would be quite opposed to Trump too.

Trump however seems to be neither a fiscal conservative or a religious fundamentalist, he's just a populist who will say whatever gets a reaction and get votes. I don't really even see coherent policies coming from him at all

Basically what Americans have is a bit like a choice between someone who is more like the National Front and someone who is more like Fianna Fáil.

It'll come down to least-worst options.

Clinton represents the status quo.
Trump represents something a bit scary.

It's always going to be much harder to shift the status quo.

Christy42

511 wrote: »

There isn't because they were legal immigrants when they entered. Most Irish Americans would still be in favour of it, as long as it's legal immigration but they're also losing jobs to low skilled immigrants who will work for lower wages. Even Bernie Sanders is against low skilled immigration because the corporate elite exploit them to drive down wages, which means more money for the rich and less money for everyone else. It's a pity the Americans don't have to cop-on to vote for him because he's the most outstanding candidate for the job.

Furthermore, Irish-American communities (ghettos) were riddled with poverty and crime, which is not acceptable as they're dangerous to travel into and require massive subsidies from tax-payers, but us Europeans refuse to learn for America's mistakes and want to allow ghettos to form here.

The Americans have far more experience with mass immigration than we do and that's why there's strong support for borders controls over there.

Sure they were all legal. Not like getting recognition for those Irish who were there illegally for so long was a political issue a while back or anything. With plenty more going in the unofficial route before them.

Trump doesn't have any serious plans to tackle illegal immigration, his plan is to cut down on the routes people can get in legally. I am aware and disagree with Sander's stance on immigration.

I can never figure out why all the discussion is on who to let in instead of what to do once they are here to stop immigration. Also many people's lives would have essentially ended if America turned all them boats away so overall it was a good thing even if things to reduce crime rates could have been done better.

TheDoctor

Looking at 5/5 for Clinton and Trump next Tuesday

K-9

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Turnout was less than 60% of those eligible to vote in 2012. Just need to energize enough voters to come out on the day. Of course the problem is it's looking like both final candidates will have high unfavorable numbers.

That seems to be the recurrent theme, there's no realistic nominee that has favourable ratings, so many Independents will be voting on a who do I hate the least basis.

KingBrian2

Change is always seen as a bit scary. Trump won New York the place which is the financial might of the Nation. He is doing well with plenty of Americans to get the nomination from that state. Other states are some what slow to change their ways of voting.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Change is always seen as a bit scary. Trump won New York the place which is the financial might of the Nation. He is doing well with plenty of Americans to get the nomination from that state. Other states are some what slow to change their ways of voting.

I'd say torturing innocents and building (likely inefficient) walls that would threaten to bankrupt the country are a little more scary than standard changes, to be honest. Trump won NY so convincingly because though he is not a politician, that is still essentially his 'home state', and because they are possibly the least likely state in the entire country to like Cruz on any level whatsoever (the guy really is a special kind of unlikeable to be honest, that I can't recall seeing as a potential front runner for a long time. Trump is a scumbag, hypocrite, liar and bunch of other things, but at least he has charisma and doesn't look like he physically dipped his face in a bucket of slime just before every public appearance).

KingBrian2

Billy86 wrote: »

I'd say torturing innocents and building (likely inefficient) walls that would threaten to bankrupt the country are a little more scary than standard changes, to be honest. Trump won NY so convincingly because though he is not a politician, that is still essentially his 'home state', and because they are possibly the least likely state in the entire country to like Cruz on any level whatsoever (the guy really is a special kind of unlikeable to be honest, that I can't recall seeing as a potential front runner for a long time. Trump is a scumbag, hypocrite, liar and bunch of other things, but at least he has charisma and doesn't look like he physically dipped his face in a bucket of slime just before every public appearance).

Personal attacks aside he is correct in the unfair way Washington politicians has treated the voting public.

Billy86

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Personal attacks aside he is correct in the unfair way Washington politicians has treated the voting public.

I think most would agree that 'politics as usual' have been quite toxic in the US in recent times (and also in farther back times, if we're honest) but what does he offer as an alternative?

One example, perhaps the most prominent, is that I keep hearing about how he will not be bought by corporate interests, but that's a bit of a false argument on the basis that he is the corporate interest. That's like trying to keep the devil out of your house by inviting the devil into your house.

KingBrian2

The way I see it the most likely president to start a war is Hillary and not Trump. The GOP war mongers want him out because he endangers their business interests around the globe. Many voters have abandoned Hillary due to inaction to stand up to those said business interests. In America you need a lot of money to influence change. President Obama had a huge movement that helped him get elected. He was chastised for the many fundraising functions he had to attend. Trump is a pro on the people front.

Christy42

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Change is always seen as a bit scary. Trump won New York the place which is the financial might of the Nation. He is doing well with plenty of Americans to get the nomination from that state. Other states are some what slow to change their ways of voting.

Trump won over the few New York Republicans who don'T matter in November. Hillary won the most votes there of any politician by quite some distance.

As for the voting being unfair with regards delegates, well he is right http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-right-that-the-gop-primary-is-unfair-it-favors-him/

Manic Moran

Christy42 wrote: »

There is something hilarious about Irish Americans being anti immigration. Anyway it is only the conservative aspects of those groups. The vast majority of unions and minority groups will vote Dem.

There is nothing wrong with the Irish being on the conservative side with regards to immigration. If you haven't noticed, we get a disproportionate number of visas, so it's easier for us to get in by following the rules. Furthermore, it's harder for us to work by not following the rules. We come over, overstay a visa, but we're in the system. As opposed to someone who just crosses the Rio Grande.

I don't think many folks on either party are anti-immigrant, per se. It's the illegal immigration that causes the differences of opinion.

Akrasia

It's easy to forget just how corrupt 'democracy' is in the U.S. until election season comes around

Sanders is winning in the polls in Rhode Island, so, guess what, 2/3 of all the polling stations are being closed for election day.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/rhode-island-closes-66-percent-of-polling-places-to-cut-election-costs/

In New York, polling stations favourable to sanders had 6 hours cut off their opening hours while Clinton friendly districts had their opening hours maintained. In Sanders home neighbourhood of brooklyn, 33% of voters were given 'affidavid' (provisional) polling cards because of discrepancies in the voting register (these votes never get counted)
There will be an investigation carried out but who's heading the investigation?
A man who has already pledged his support to Hillary Clinton, Scott Stringer
http://usuncut.com/politics/new-york-audit-clinton-delegate/

There were blatant shenanigans in Arizona and Nevada... in every case, the shenanigans appear to be favourable to Clinton

Greg Palast is already documenting the mass voter fraud that is being prepared for the November elections
http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/58457-new-york-voting-fiasco.html

K-9

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The way I see it the most likely president to start a war is Hillary and not Trump. The GOP war mongers want him out because he endangers their business interests around the globe. Many voters have abandoned Hillary due to inaction to stand up to those said business interests. In America you need a lot of money to influence change. President Obama had a huge movement that helped him get elected. He was chastised for the many fundraising functions he had to attend. Trump is a pro on the people front.

Less likely than Hillary is hardly a ringing endorsement though, his comments on ISIS and Muslims would suggest he'll get involved in some things.

Akrasia

K-9 wrote: »

Less likely than Hillary is hardly a ringing endorsement though, his comments on ISIS and Muslims would suggest he'll get involved in some things.

He gave a speech yesterday where he said

'"We are going to build a military so big, so strong, so powerful, that no one is going to mess with us again,"

It's just his normal rhetoric, but he's basically calling for a new arms race

He's a total nutcase. Trump as a president would be guaranteed to start at least 1 unnecessary war

timmyntc

Akrasia wrote: »

He gave a speech yesterday where he said

'"We are going to build a military so big, so strong, so powerful, that no one is going to mess with us again,"

It's just his normal rhetoric, but he's basically calling for a new arms race

He's a total nutcase. Trump as a president would be guaranteed to start at least 1 unnecessary war

The majority of what he says is just populist rhetoric, it's very doubtful he'll do any of it - mostly because his positions tend to contradict one another over time.
What you'd expect him to do if he did get into power, would probably follow what he's written in his book: 'Crippled America: How to make America great again' (at least I think that's the title).

LuckyLloyd

Amazingfun wrote: »

I think you are very wrong about that. Hillary is the monster, and she is deeply hated by many, including a lot of "Bernie Bros".
I predict Trump will crush her, and truly, I cannot wait. Just hope he doesn't somehow get shanked at the convention, but that is looking more and more unlikely as each day passes, thank God

It becomes ever clearer that a strong preference ruins the ability of observers to comment rationally about an electoral process. The modern media in its diversity and ever growing lack of rigour supports this. If you really want / hope for something to happen you can find a bubble of the Internet that will fill you with 'content' arguing the existence of a path to same. They'll also provide plenty of 'it's not your preference's fault' conspiritarding about how your side is being cheated by the man.

Plenty of examples on this thread, and recently in Politics Cafe during the run up to the Irish General election.

Akrasia

timmyntc wrote: »

The majority of what he says is just populist rhetoric, it's very doubtful he'll do any of it - mostly because his positions tend to contradict one another over time.
What you'd expect him to do if he did get into power, would probably follow what he's written in his book: 'Crippled America: How to make America great again' (at least I think that's the title).

Ok so what happens when some weak country calls him on his BS rhetoric, says No to him and makes him look weak

Trump thinks he can bully Mexico into building his wall for him, when they say No, what will he do, back down and look like an idiot?

International relations are fragile. Trump could threaten trade embargos to try and bully other countries, then they retaliate, or they strengthen ties with Russia or China, and suddenly we're in a situation where American interests are being harmed

The Cuban Missile crisis was a warning about how fragile peace is and how easy it is to come to the brink of disaster. Putin is already a very volitile character. What happens if Trump reacts to everything he does by trying to out strong man him?

Trump likes to 'negotiate from power' but what happens when others have power too? Does he recognise this? You can't bully the entire world.

timmyntc

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok so what happens when some weak country calls him on his BS rhetoric, says No to him and makes him look weak

Trump thinks he can bully Mexico into building his wall for him, when they say No, what will he do, back down and look like an idiot?

International relations are fragile. Trump could threaten trade embargos to try and bully other countries, then they retaliate, or they strengthen ties with Russia or China, and suddenly we're in a situation where American interests are being harmed

The Cuban Missile crisis was a warning about how fragile peace is and how easy it is to come to the brink of disaster. Putin is already a very volitile character. What happens if Trump reacts to everything he does by trying to out strong man him?

Trump likes to 'negotiate from power' but what happens when others have power too? Does he recognise this? You can't bully the entire world.

Again, read my post. What he says is populist rhetoric, designed to appeal to voters in order to gain votes. There is no reason he has to do any of that on the international stage once elected.
I mean just look at Irish politics, FF said water charges must be scrapped pre-election, get lots of votes, now that they're close to power they 're-think' the whole thing.

K-9

timmyntc wrote: »

The majority of what he says is just populist rhetoric, it's very doubtful he'll do any of it - mostly because his positions tend to contradict one another over time.
What you'd expect him to do if he did get into power, would probably follow what he's written in his book: 'Crippled America: How to make America great again' (at least I think that's the title).

Well none of us know. We do know he is tough on ISIS and Muslims, and he's appealing to the "USA, USA" crowd. Put it this way, he's no pacifist!
If the approval ratings are low if he gets elected, I'd say a Maggie and the Falklands type "engagement" is on the cards. The 10 point bump in ratings would matter more than the rights or wrongs of a war.

timmyntc

K-9 wrote: »

Well none of us know. We do know he is tough on ISIS and Muslims, and he's appealing to the "USA, USA" crowd. Put it this way, he's no pacifist!
If the approval ratings are low if he gets elected, I'd say a Maggie and the Falklands type "engagement" is on the cards. The 10 point bump in ratings would matter more than the rights or wrongs of a war.

Sure a few months back he was advocating pulling out of all foreign countries and not getting involved in any external affairs!
I think it's fair to say that he'll court whatever crowd needs to be courted, and once they're on his side, he'll move on to the next.
Come for the policy, stay for the charisma, essentially.

BoJack Horseman

timmyntc wrote: »

Sure a few months back he was advocating pulling out of all foreign countries and not getting involved in any external affairs.

Trump & Sanders.

peas-in-a-pod.

Akrasia

timmyntc wrote: »

Sure a few months back he was advocating pulling out of all foreign countries and not getting involved in any external affairs!
I think it's fair to say that he'll court whatever crowd needs to be courted, and once they're on his side, he'll move on to the next.
Come for the policy, stay for the charisma, essentially.

He's a complete wild card. Nobody has a clue what he would do. The only clues we have are the positions he is taking now about what he says he is going to do.

The unbelievably extreme rhetoric about deliberately targetting the children of suspected terrorists, the use of torture... these speak towards his character, his moral barometer, of what he thinks constitutes strength and power.

His supporters claim to know which things he says are what he actually means, but they're just hearing what they want to hear and putting everything else down to electioneering and populist rhetoric

timmyntc

Akrasia wrote: »

He's a complete wild card. Nobody has a clue what he would do. The only clues we have are the positions he is taking now about what he says he is going to do.

The unbelievably extreme rhetoric about deliberately targetting the children of suspected terrorists, the use of torture... these speak towards his character, his moral barometer, of what he thinks constitutes strength and power.

His supporters claim to know which things he says are what he actually means, but they're just hearing what they want to hear and putting everything else down to electioneering and populist rhetoric

We do have a clue, it's his unofficial manifesto - the book that he allegedly began his presidential campaign solely to promote: 'Crippled America: How to make America great again"
Sound familiar?
The entire book is theoretical policy on, you guessed it, How to make America great again. So why wouldn't Trump use the policies that he wrote himself? If he is as big of an egotistical maniac as you say, then surely it'd be par for the course for him to use his book to run the country?


Nice strawman - aaccording to you everything Trump's supporters claim to know is just populist rhetoric targeting them, however all the 'unbelievably extreme rhetoric about deliberately targetting the children of suspected terrorists, the use of torture... these speak towards his character, his moral barometer, of what he thinks constitutes strength and power.'
Tell me why, why is it that all the bad things Trump says are absolute truths and represent him wholly, but all the good things are just populist drivel?
Is it because, perhaps, it suits your agenda?

BoJack Horseman

timmyntc wrote: »

Is it because, perhaps, it suits your agenda?

You don't get it...
When Trump rails on NATO and foreign allies he's being a demagogue.
When St Bernie does it, it's progressive.

oscarBravo

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Trump & Sanders.

peas-in-a-pod.

If there's one absolute truism in life, it's that if two people have vaguely similar views on one specific issue, then those two people become utterly indistinguishable in every other way.