2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

BoJack Horseman

Never heard of him.... But he ticks boxes.

Young, handsom-ish, Latino, Cabinet member, former Democratic Mayor in Texas, his brother is a Texan Congressman.

If Texas is competitive, Hilary would monster the electoral college.

Black Swan

Rjd2 wrote: »

Warren the second fav.

No way will Hillary Clinton pick a female VP running mate like Elizabeth Warren, and have 2 females on the ticket for the first time in US history. Furthermore, Warren has said numerous times she would not run. So the bookies are in fantasy land.

Clinton v Trump won't be close. She'll have a bigger percentage victory than Obama had in 2012.

hatrickpatrick

eire4 wrote: »

You will see some voting Sanders as a write in candidate

What exactly does this mean? Like, just supposing somebody doesn't run, and yet a majority actually do write their name in, what happens when that name wins? Can one actually be elected without running? Can you elect someone who doesn't even want the job...?

hatrickpatrick

Warren would be extremely foolish to accept a VP post if it was offered. She's already blown a lot of her credibility with anti-corporatist progressives by not backing Sanders in the primary, if she accepts a Clinton appointment it'd be curtains with that particular demographic - the demographic that she's spent most of her recent career courting.

Christy42

Black Swan wrote: »

The Bernie Sanders supporter demographic is indeed ironic, somewhat inexplicable, given that the oldest running candidate for 2016 president has the largest youth segment. The millions of US college and university students are in general wild about him, and these students just might overcome their historic reluctance to do more than make a lot of noise during rallies, and actually go to the polls for a Bernie Vice President 8 November 2016, especially if he can get policy concessions from Hillary Clinton in exchange for becoming her VP running mate. Hillary is already adopting one of Sanders early platform planks of debt-free college education. But not to worry, Clinton will not pick Sanders, that would be too smart a move.

In terms of Hillary Clinton and Sanders being white, I doubt that will be an issue for Clinton with Hispanics and Blacks, both of whom generally hate Trump (who is also white) in sufficient numbers for what he has repeatedly said during his campaign about them, and other minorities. And the political joke about Hillary's husband Bill is that he was the first Black president, and opened his first offices after leaving the presidency in a largely Black neighborhood, which as very popular with that voting demographic.

More than likely Trump will not pick an Hispanic or Black VP running mate, because that may be cause for him to lose many of his white male voting segment, especially those that cheer whenever he talks about the Trump Wall or deporting millions of Mexicans and Hispanics. Methinks Trump will pick a white male VP running mate, probably a politician from a state with lots of EC votes.

You could be right in that Hillary doesn't need any more of the minority vote.
Still it is no harm to double down on that vote either if she picks someone smart.

As a young person I still question young people's willingness to actually go vote. Sure I do it but aside from the marriage referendum I haven't seen it happening in large numbers. Is there any data on if Bernie did get more young people to the polls. I mean he had his core support but I would figure he would have more delegates if they were coming out in droves. I don't see much of a benefit to picking Bernie.

K-9

Christy42 wrote: »

I don't know if two white old people on a ballot is the best idea for the Democratic audience. Still a younger member of the party that was supportive of Sanders might be ideal. Not sure who though. Bonus points if they are a minority.

I can't see Trump winning. Where does he win that Romney didn't win 4 years ago? He is great at getting his voters to the polls in big numbers but how many uneducated white males (shown as his main demographic time after time) can there be?

Sanders attracts the young vote, if ever age doesn't matter, there you are.

Tbh I'd be surprised Sanders would accept an offer from Hillary if it came, it's a dream ticket though.

matthew8

Rjd2 wrote: »

For what it's worth Julian Castro is the fav to get the vice president nomination at the moment with the bookies and most debates online are suggesting Clinton will pick him.

Warren the second fav.

Castro's a bit of an empty suit who lacks the experience and qualifications for the position. His appointment would be pure tokenism and could backfire as that would really be throwing him in the deep end. I'm not saying he'd be bad, but it's too risky.

On the issue of whether Sanders should drop out, I really think he should. His campaign is raising and spending lots of money and it's not fair on all donors, many of whom aren't all that wealthy, to keep on asking them for funds when he knows his chance is gone. He's already forced Hillary to tack left, she's hardly going to go any further left when she knows there's no more threat of defeat.

cHaTbOx

matthew8 wrote: »

On the issue of whether Sanders should drop out, I really think he should. His campaign is raising and spending lots of money and it's not fair on all donors, many of whom aren't all that wealthy, to keep on asking them for funds when he knows his chance is gone. He's already forced Hillary to tack left, she's hardly going to go any further left when she knows there's no more threat of defeat.

If you listen to Hillary victory speeches you will see that he has not forced her to the left at all. She has faked left and now moving back to centre.
Sanders should definitely stay in. I don't believe he will win the nomination bar a miracle but his campaign is bringing the issues to the people and they are waking up .

He is spending donations on the campaign of spreading a message and if people believe in his message then why shouldn't they send donations. The DNC do not know what to do with him as they cannot buy him off. Hillary did not just fall in line and start backing Obama in 2008 without getting something and that's why she got Secretary of State. Sanders has nothing to lose and when asked about he wants if he loses , it is always about the issues and not for any position.

Clinton was very lucky that someone like Trump is emerging as GOP nominee this year. It's the fear of someone like Trump that is making it seem like the only issue is keeping Trump out of office rather than look at the bigger picture.

Sanders needs to stay in until the very end to make sure that the DNC knows that this movement is not going away .

Black Swan

Deleted User wrote: »

Clinton v Trump won't be close. She'll have a bigger percentage victory than Obama had in 2012.

I'm not so sure Buttonftw. There is an odd thing going on with a large segment of the American electorate during this 2016 presidential election who support TV "Celebrity Apprentice President" Trump with ZERO governance experience for the highest post in US government. At the state governor election level it's happened before. For example, body builder and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California governorship of the largest population state in America, largely as a result of voter dissatisfaction and special recall election to replace then-Governor Gray Davis. Yet another example, WWF professional wrestler Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship as a Reform Party candidate due to voter dissatisfaction with both the Republican and Democratic parties. Unlike Schwarzenegger who had ZERO governance experience, at least Ventura had a bit of prior governance as Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Both had been elected during a period of voter dissatisfaction with the establishment, and for their celebrity status, not because they were the most qualified persons for the job.

Rjd2

Black Swan wrote: »

No way will Hillary Clinton pick a female VP running mate like Elizabeth Warren, and have 2 females on the ticket for the first time in US history. Furthermore, Warren has said numerous times she would not run. So the bookies are in fantasy land.

Just need to clear something up here, Castro is the strong betting fav, but having looked at more prices, some bookies have Tim Kaine 2nd fav while others have Warren 2nd fav!

Its a very tough market to get right at this stage to be fair.

Black Swan

Black Swan wrote: »

I'm not so sure Buttonftw. There is an odd thing going on with a large segment of the American electorate during this 2016 presidential election who support TV "Celebrity Apprentice President" Trump with ZERO governance experience for the highest post in US government. At the state governor election level it's happened before. For example, body builder and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger won the California governorship of the largest population state in America, largely as a result of voter dissatisfaction and special recall election to replace then-Governor Gray Davis. Yet another example, WWF professional wrestler Jesse Ventura won the Minnesota governorship as a Reform Party candidate due to voter dissatisfaction with both the Republican and Democratic parties. Unlike Schwarzenegger who had ZERO governance experience, at least Ventura had a bit of prior governance as Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. Both had been elected during a period of voter dissatisfaction with the establishment, and for their celebrity status, not because they were the most qualified persons for the job.

Minnesota is mid-sized state. California, while huge, is a special case when it comes to celebrity, there was a good article about how that's why basketball works better than football there, all 5 starters are celebs, the 50 or so on a football team can't be. Arnie won as something of a by-product of the energy started by others. In 2006 he got a second term on turnout in the low 30%s.

While Hillary isn't exciting, she has minority votes sewn up along with default Democratic voters. Trump can't turn many, if any, states from the last election.

The media's job is to tell us it'll be close and generate their own audiences. It was the same in 08 for ages when it was obvious to anyone who wanted to actually think about it that Romney was nowhere near Obama. The same again with elements of the media pretending like Sanders had a chance in the polls when it was clear 2 months ago his goose was cooked.

If Trump can somehow get about 20% of those people who never vote to do it for him then yeah he has a ****. The odds of that are slim. He'll also be trying to delay a couple of trials which are in the pipeline and due around September.

Christy42

K-9 wrote: »

Sanders attracts the young vote, if ever age doesn't matter, there you are.

Tbh I'd be surprised Sanders would accept an offer from Hillary if it came, it's a dream ticket though.

Young people voted for him over Hillary. I have yet to see evidence that they wouldn't have voted for someone if another generic Democrat candidate was up there. Most will follow on to Hillary and those who won't might consider Sanders to be a traitor if he accepts the VP and not vote anyway.

Meanwhile California has seen an upsurge in Latino registrations who will likely vote Clinton. If a VP can bring in more registrations from minorities and bring more of them to the polls it seems like a bigger win.

For the noise the Sander's campaign made and for all their youth. What was the percentage of young voters for the primaries in comparison to previous years? I haven't seen it but I am willing to bet it isn't up by a lot. See exit polls overestimating the young vote (as they tend to).

K-9

Christy42 wrote: »

Young people voted for him over Hillary. I have yet to see evidence that they wouldn't have voted for someone if another generic Democrat candidate was up there. Most will follow on to Hillary and those who won't might consider Sanders to be a traitor if he accepts the VP and not vote anyway.

Meanwhile California has seen an upsurge in Latino registrations who will likely vote Clinton. If a VP can bring in more registrations from minorities and bring more of them to the polls it seems like a bigger win.

For the noise the Sander's campaign made and for all their youth. What was the percentage of young voters for the primaries in comparison to previous years? I haven't seen it but I am willing to bet it isn't up by a lot. See exit polls overestimating the young vote (as they tend to).

Not sure on the figures but then you are comparing to Obama record levels, I wouldn't expect him to beat those. I thonk it's Sanders ideas that appeal, plus his age stands to him in a way, he has tried to be consistent throughput his long career.

RobertKK

Trump will be the Republican candidate, despite what people say about him, he is not as awful as Ted Cruz.
Sp awful that John Boehner has come out and called Ted Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh".
Cruz has a failed campaign, and I might as well come out and say big bird is going to be my running mate in the US presidential elections, nevermind I am not American...

RobertKK

I heard a stat that Trump has received more votes than Romney or McCain did at this stage of their presidential campaigns.

TheDoctor

Fits in with the rhetoric that republican primaries are seeing record numbers.

Using wikipedia

Trump has 10.1 million votes at this point. For the whole of the 2012 and 2008 primaries, Romney got 10 million and McCain got 9.9 million

eire4

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What exactly does this mean? Like, just supposing somebody doesn't run, and yet a majority actually do write their name in, what happens when that name wins? Can one actually be elected without running? Can you elect someone who doesn't even want the job...?

It means when a voter shows up at the booth next November and he looks at the names listed for president they also have the option of writing in a candidate themselves not listed there. Now if they write in Donald Duck as a protest at what they see there then obviously that vote will not be counted for presidential voting. However if the person writes in Bernie Sanders as Sanders has gone through all the processes needed to be able to run for president then that vote would be counted.
So no if a person does not go through the formal paperwork and process of running then no they cannot be elected no matter how many people write in their name. But if they have as Sanders obviously has done gone through that process then he can be a write in candidate so to speak. Now obviously he would have no chance of winning but there is a significant number of Sanders voters out there who have pledged to vote for Sanders as a write in candidate or vote for Jill Stein the Green Party candidate.

eire4

Christy42 wrote: »

Young people voted for him over Hillary. I have yet to see evidence that they wouldn't have voted for someone if another generic Democrat candidate was up there. Most will follow on to Hillary and those who won't might consider Sanders to be a traitor if he accepts the VP and not vote anyway.

Meanwhile California has seen an upsurge in Latino registrations who will likely vote Clinton. If a VP can bring in more registrations from minorities and bring more of them to the polls it seems like a bigger win.

For the noise the Sander's campaign made and for all their youth. What was the percentage of young voters for the primaries in comparison to previous years? I haven't seen it but I am willing to bet it isn't up by a lot. See exit polls overestimating the young vote (as they tend to).

I do not know if percentage wise Sanders has increased the number younger voters in terms of turnout but here is what the numbers were for the actual election in 2012:


18-24 38%
25-49 49.5%


Now remember turnout for elections in America is pathetic and it is even lower in the primaries so you cannot directly compare the above numbers to the current primaries. I have nowhere seen if the number of younger voters is higher then in previous primaries statistically. But what can be seen is overall Democratic turnout is about double the last election at 12% but lower then 2008 which was a record if you can believe it at 19.5%. Other then 2008 the current overall turnout at 12% is the highest Democratic turnout since 1994 when it was 13%. So as you can see from these numbers while clearly not divided up by age it shows very starkly how few Americans actually vote in primaries.

JPNelsforearm

Trumps foreign policy speech in D.C

"We, will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of Globalism, the nation state remains the true foundation of happiness and harmony."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW8RqLN3Qao

41 minutes onwards
Direct link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW8RqLN3Qao&feature=youtu.be&t=2505


Beautiful. About time the pushback against internationalism/globalism came.

KingBrian2

This election was great for the media if even the content was less so do people believe young educated people will turn out or not.

Billy86

"The important thing to consider is that more and more there is an interdependence of world economies. No one can afford to be isolationist any more. Keep your focus global. Globalization has torn down the barriers that have formerly separated the national from the international markets."

- Donald Trump, 2008.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

I heard a stat that Trump has received more votes than Romney or McCain did at this stage of their presidential campaigns.

TheDoctor wrote: »

Fits in with the rhetoric that republican primaries are seeing record numbers.

Using wikipedia

Trump has 10.1 million votes at this point. For the whole of the 2012 and 2008 primaries, Romney got 10 million and McCain got 9.9 million

Both contests were effectively over after Super Tuesday though. That would have resulted in weaker turnout in the following primaries. There's little incentive to turnout when your vote doesn't really matter.

This year's contest is much different. It'd nearly 2 months since Super Tuesday and we still don't know who the nominee will be. It's looking more like it could be Trump but a loss in Indiana could be a huge setback. As a result we're seeing far higher turnout for primaries this year. This is why Trump's vote count is higher I would think.

Black Swan

Deleted User wrote: »

California, while huge, is a special case when it comes to celebrity, there was a good article about how that's why basketball works better than football there

If you are comparing Pro vs College, yes Pro basketball works better in California than NFL, but not so for NCAA university football in fans, stadium attendance, and telly viewership. The USC Trojans, UCLA Bruins, Cal Bears, and Stanford Cardinals football dwarf all other athletic programmes, and fill massive stadiums up to 100,000 fans depending upon game. In comparison, NCAA basketball is tiny, is rarely telecast, and virtually goes unnoticed as a sport in California.

Deleted User wrote: »

While Hillary isn't exciting, she has minority votes sewn up along with default Democratic voters. Trump can't turn many, if any, states from the last election.

Hillary Clinton is a boring and unimaginative speaker, while "Celebrity Apprentice President" Trump draws a lot of attention by frequently saying "outrageous" things per his 1987 playbook. Ironically Trump's supporters overlook the fact that Trump is a spoiled little rich kid since birth (now billionaire) that represents the tiny greedy few that control most of the wealth in America, and will not share that wealth with those millions that support him. If he did, he would no longer be a billionaire.

Deleted User wrote: »

The media's job is to tell us it'll be close and generate their own audiences.

This is a good point, and Trump and the media have been mutually benefiting from their play with each other. Trump's sensationalism is good for media viewership, ratings and profits, and Trump gains visibility in Huey Long "King Fish" fashion, where good news is the best news, bad news is the 2nd best news, and no news is bad news for a politician.

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

"The important thing to consider is that more and more there is an interdependence of world economies. No one can afford to be isolationist any more. Keep your focus global. Globalization has torn down the barriers that have formerly separated the national from the international markets."

- Donald Trump, 2008.

Yeah, for business, no one denies that. I(or rather the company I work for) do the majority of my business overseas due to the nature of it, it couldnt be done any other way, it wouldnt exist but for the regulatory framework put in place.

However, that is not to say, its in the best interests of a nation to encourage all companies to go overseas, tax breaks, trade deals etc to the detriment of its citizens, sure its good for business, but in the long run all it benefits is the 1% depending on the industry. There is a middle ground and a trade off, this is especially true where american industry is utilising overseas tax and labour to the detriment of their own nation. Its a subversion.

Unrestricted globalisation/neo liberalism and mass movement of cheap labour ,in the long run, is bad, its a race to the bottom

hatrickpatrick

eire4 wrote: »

It means when a voter shows up at the booth next November and he looks at the names listed for president they also have the option of writing in a candidate themselves not listed there. Now if they write in Donald Duck as a protest at what they see there then obviously that vote will not be counted for presidential voting. However if the person writes in Bernie Sanders as Sanders has gone through all the processes needed to be able to run for president then that vote would be counted.
So no if a person does not go through the formal paperwork and process of running then no they cannot be elected no matter how many people write in their name. But if they have as Sanders obviously has done gone through that process then he can be a write in candidate so to speak. Now obviously he would have no chance of winning but there is a significant number of Sanders voters out there who have pledged to vote for Sanders as a write in candidate or vote for Jill Stein the Green Party candidate.

That's genuinely incredible, I had no idea of this. The American FPTP voting system is truly awful, but this is a cool way of preventing the establishment from blocking a candidacy, even if it's never been successful. The fact that the system has this mechanism at all is pretty cool.

To be honest, my biggest issue with the US election is the fact that the House of Representatives gets to pick a candidate if nobody gets more than 50%. It should either go to whoever got the most voted, or be done by a quota system like we have here. Handing power to the house in this manner essentially cements the paradigm that there can only ever be two large parties.

Billy86

In the long run all it does is benefit the 1%.

Trump is part of the 1%.

All Trump has ever really looked to do is benefit himself.

KingBrian2

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Yeah, for business, no one denies that. I(or rather the company I work for) do the majority of my business overseas due to the nature of it, it couldnt be done any other way, it wouldnt exist but for the regulatory framework put in place.

However, that is not to say, its in the best interests of a nation to encourage all companies to go overseas, tax breaks, trade deals etc to the detriment of its citizens, sure its good for business, but in the long run all it benefits is the 1% depending on the industry. There is a middle ground and a trade off, this is especially true where american industry is utilising overseas tax and labour to the detriment of their own nation. Its a subversion.

Unrestricted globalisation/neo liberalism and mass movement of cheap labour ,in the long run, is bad, its a race to the bottom

What of the benefits America got out of all those companies going oversees at the expense of Chinese workers? America lost jobs and industry fell away but they received a load of consumer products and a generous Chinese partner allowing Americans and foreigners to live and spread the wealth across the country. Trump would do well to keep China as a friend and deal with abuses perpetrated by Chinese and American corporations.

JPNelsforearm

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What of the benefits America got out of all those companies going oversees at the expense of Chinese workers? America lost jobs and industry fell away but they received a load of consumer products and a generous Chinese partner allowing Americans and foreigners to live and spread the wealth across the country. Trump would do well to keep China as a friend and deal with abuses perpetrated by Chinese and American corporations.

Results of globalisation for the average Yank.

Gained
Cheap tat you dont need, and more cheap tat you dont need.

Lost
Stable respectable jobs, reasonable standard of living and being able to afford to pay off your mortgage send your kids to uni.

Globalisation is good for business, not a nation.

ancapailldorcha

I think that free trade is beneficial for most people. However, some people will lose out, namely those employed in manufacturing. It'd be a better idea to develop strategies for these people such as training programmes as opposed to abandoning free trade entirely.