2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

No it's not, for if the cringey #NeverTrump had any traction, it would show in the numbers. Instead, we see Trump dominating soundly, which is fabulous

With no one else running in the remaining Republican state primaries/caucuses but Trump, I doubt that the voter turnout for the former Republican competitors (Cruz and Kasich) for the presidential nomination will be significant (e.g., stay at home, etc.), consequently winning a race by Trump against dropped-out opponents is not only misleading, but moot and frivolous. Hurrah, I won the Republican race by a landslide against no one else running!

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

With no one else running in the remaining Republican state primaries/caucuses but Trump, I doubt that the voter turnout for the former Republican competitors for the presidential nomination will be significant, consequently winning a race by Trump against dropped-out opponents is not only misleading, but moot and frivolous. Hurrah, I won the Republican race by a landslide against no one else running!

Umm, I just explained to you, as clearly as I can, why last night's primary results were not any of the things you say here. Trump's strong showing mattered very much, as Cruz was still on the ballot, and Nebraska had a "big wig" :rolleyes: NeverTrump stumper in one Senator Ben Sasse.

Amusingly enough, Sasse had been suggested by NeverTrump loser Bill Kristol as a possible 3rd party candidate, but the trouncing by Trump last night ended his run too. That, along with a piece written by Mike Cernovich which has attracted quite a bit of interest:

http://www.dangerandplay.com/2016/05/05/ben-sasse-and-nevertrumps-pedophile-problem/

Black Swan

K-9 wrote: »

Was wondering if Sanders was tipped to win there anyway, but it must be worrying for Clinton that he's still winning states with the race over bar the shouting.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Sanders is effectively out now though. Every state he fails to win just makes it more and more certain that Hilary will be the next president.

Once again, if Hillary Clinton is smart, she will woo Sanders to be her VP running mate against Trump & Company. This would unify the larger Democratic party, and also draw lots of Sanders independents. Although anecdotal, we had such a discussion at our locale javahouse the other day, and a few were Sanders supporters, and they said they would stay at home if Sanders did not run, but would vote for a Clinton-Sanders ticket. But Hillary is not that smart to pick a Clinton-Sanders ticket, which would crush Celebrity Apprentice President Trump 8 November 2016; while a Clinton-Whomever ticket will be a very, very close race allowing rump & Company to possibly win.

ancapailldorcha

Black Swan wrote: »

Once again, if Hillary Clinton is smart, she will woo Sanders to be her VP running mate against Trump & Company. This would unify the larger Democratic party, and also draw lots of Sanders independents. Although anecdotal, we had such a discussion at our locale javahouse the other day, and a few were Sanders supporters, and they said they would stay at home if Sanders did not run, but would vote for a Clinton-Sanders ticket. But Hillary is not that smart to pick a Clinton-Sanders ticket, which would crush Celebrity Apprentice President Trump 8 November 2016; while a Clinton-Whomever ticket will be a very, very close race allowing rump & Company to possibly win.

There are a few problems with this idea. Firstly, Hilary Clinton is emblematic of the establishment Sanders has spent decades railing against. It's unlikely he'd consider such an option. Possible but rather unlikely in my opinion. Secondly, how necessary would such a pact be? His supporters are unlikely to vote for Trump meaning they'll either spoil their ballots, abstain entirely or vote for Hilary. Thirdly, there is also the risk he'll appear as a sellout in order to gain power, a scenario which would undoubtedly harm the Democrat vote.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

Once again, if Hillary Clinton is smart, she will woo Sanders to be her VP running mate against Trump & Company. This would unify the larger Democratic party, and also draw lots of Sanders independents. Although anecdotal, we had such a discussion at our locale javahouse the other day, and a few were Sanders supporters, and they said they would stay at home if Sanders did not run, but would vote for a Clinton-Sanders ticket. But Hillary is not that smart to pick a Clinton-Sanders ticket, which would crush Celebrity Apprentice President Trump 8 November 2016; while a Clinton-Whomever ticket will be a very, very close race allowing rump & Company to possibly win.

I would tend to agree with that analysis. Sanders win again last night makes it 19 states in total he has now won. He is likely to win most of the remaining states as well. The big key will be how he does in California. If he upsets Clinton there then although Clinton will still likely hold the lead in pledged delegates that really upsets the Democratic apple cart as it makes Clinton look like a very weak candidate as she comes stumbling into the nomination. The direct opposite to the coronation process that the Democratic party expected and wanted.


Last week the Democratic party moved to exclude Sanders delegates from having meaningful roles on convention committees so this combined with the fact that close to half the states of the US will have voted for Sanders and he will be still winning states right to the end clearly show that despite all the efforts from the Democratic party Clinton is a very weak and very beatable candidate and this kind of Democratic Party behaviour will have many Sanders supporters voting him as a write in or voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party.


I have many many times talked about how corrupt and broken the political system is in the US and the fact that the 2 party cartel on power in Washington DC look set to push Clinton v Trump just illustrates that point all the more as whatever one may say about these 2 candidates the idea that they will govern in the best interests of the vast majority of Americas is laughable.

eire4

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are a few problems with this idea. Firstly, Hilary Clinton is emblematic of the establishment Sanders has spent decades railing against. It's unlikely he'd consider such an option. Possible but rather unlikely in my opinion. Secondly, how necessary would such a pact be? His supporters are unlikely to vote for Trump meaning they'll either spoil their ballots, abstain entirely or vote for Hilary. Thirdly, there is also the risk he'll appear as a sellout in order to gain power, a scenario which would undoubtedly harm the Democrat vote.

If the Democrats continue to alienate Sanders voters (as their recent behaviour with the convention committees shows they continue to do) many of whom are independants and a large enough chunk of them vote Sanders as a write in or vote Jill Stein that could cost Clinton the election.

ancapailldorcha

eire4 wrote: »

If the Democrats continue to alienate Sanders voters (as their recent behaviour with the convention committees shows they continue to do) many of whom are independants and a large enough chunk of them vote Sanders as a write in or vote Jill Stein that could cost Clinton the election.

True but there is also a risk of them becoming disillusioned. Sanders was running as an anti-establishment candidate and now he's going to play second fiddle to someone from Wall Street? This is assuming he even accepts such an offer which in turn is predicated on Hilary making it.

eire4

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

True but there is also a risk of them becoming disillusioned. Sanders was running as an anti-establishment candidate and now he's going to play second fiddle to someone from Wall Street? This is assuming he even accepts such an offer which in turn is predicated on Hilary making it.

A valid point no doubt about it. The guess would be this scenario would bring in more of the Sanders voters then the current strategy which has been to alienate them. Either way its all a moot point I think as I would be beyond shocked if Clinton even remotely considered trying to bring Sanders on board as VP.

ancapailldorcha

eire4 wrote: »

A valid point no doubt about it. The guess would be this scenario would bring in more of the Sanders voters then the current strategy which has been to alienate them. Either way its all a moot point I think as I would be beyond shocked if Clinton even remotely considered trying to bring Sanders on board as VP.

Thing is, they know that voting Clinton is the only way to stop Trump ascending the throne so to speak. Voting for a third party candidate will only make that more likely. Then again, there is about to be a significant fraction of the GOP vote who'll be voting either Hilary or third party as well. Interesting times ahead methinks.

eire4

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thing is, they know that voting Clinton is the only way to stop Trump ascending the throne so to speak. Voting for a third party candidate will only make that more likely. Then again, there is about to be a significant fraction of the GOP vote who'll be voting either Hilary or third party as well. Interesting times ahead methinks.

There is a chunk of the Sanders support that don't care if voting for say Jill Stein takes enough votes away from Clinton to lose her the election. The Democratic Party have long been attempting to attract votes by saying vote for the lesser of 2 evils (instead of actually engaging with voters and trying to attract them in a positive way with candidates that will actually represent the best interests of the vast majority of Americans) and are using that argument again but there is no doubt that some Sanders supporters are just not interested and see Clinton for a bought and paid for corporate Democrat like so much of that party''s leadership. The arrogance of now working to exclude Sanders delegates from meaningful roles on convention committees will just alienate more Sanders voters. The current path that the Democratic Party in pushing a weak candidate and in the manner in which they are doing so is making a defeat for them at least in the presidential election next November a real possibility when previously it looked unlikely. As the weeks and months of this campaign have gone by Clinton has looked a weaker and more beatable candidate and I am not seeing or hearing anything that will change that right now. Now she could still win in November no doubt about it but right now she is clearly a very weak candidate. In fact I believe her unfavourability rating is currently in the mid to upper 50's range and has been climbing. I would say the only reason she even has a shot in November is because the Republican nominee Trump has extremely high unfvaourability ratings as well. They really are 2 dreadful candidates and as I said earlier illustrate just how broken and corrupt the American political system is.

TheDoctor

Sanders trails in poll for Oregon primary next Tuesday. Surprised by that. Very liberal part of the country over there. See Washington result earlier.

Black Swan

Act III. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan role-plays his reluctance to endorse Trump "yet," when we all know that he will endorse him, and had planned to do so once Trump had retained his lead in delegates culminating in the last 2 Trump opponents dropping out leaving Trump the de facto Republican presidential nominee. Ryan has played his reluctance role all too often before to where he is now typecast. Remembering Act I: Ryan claimed reluctance to run as Romney's 2012 VP, but for the will of the people he suffered to run. Act II: Ryan claimed reluctance to embrace the 3rd highest post in US government, 3rd in succession to the presidency as Speaker of the House, but for the will of the people he suffered to occupy the post. This would not make for a B-film. No Oscar for Ryan, as he has failed to suspend disbelief. What a craic!

K-9

Goes down well with future prospects I suppose. Ryan looking into the distance looking all statesman like and pensive and then having wrestled with his conscience, declares his intentions.

JPNelsforearm

K-9 wrote: »

Goes down well with future prospects I suppose. Ryan looking into the distance looking all statesman like and pensive and then having wrestled with his conscience, declares his intentions.

Ryan is viewed as the ultimate insider though, never held a real job, pro globalism, pro intervention, pro business. If this election is just a blip and its back to the neo-con status quo, then yes, he is positioned nicely, but imo, his style of politician(working against the interests of his electorate) is dead in the water, the base doesnt want him, he's a party apparatchik, look how Bush and Rubio, both heavily pushed by the establishment fared.

Skylinehead

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Ryan is viewed as the ultimate insider though, never held a real job, pro globalism, pro intervention, pro business.

Trump is at least two of those things too, so maybe they will see eye to eye.

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Ryan is viewed as the ultimate insider though, never held a real job, pro globalism, pro intervention, pro business. If this election is just a blip and its back to the neo-con status quo, then yes, he is positioned nicely, but imo, his style of politician(working against the interests of his electorate) is dead in the water, the base doesnt want him, he's a party apparatchik, look how Bush and Rubio, both heavily pushed by the establishment fared.

In the multiple primaries that are going on for Republicans the party candidates are doing well in general (it just so happens to be the most important one that went badly on them).

It remains to be seen if this actually causes a shift or if this all goes away with Trump.

JPNelsforearm

Christy42 wrote: »

In the multiple primaries that are going on for Republicans the party candidates are doing well in general (it just so happens to be the most important one that went badly on them).

It remains to be seen if this actually causes a shift or if this all goes away with Trump.

Even if Trump ultimately fails, it shows there is a path to political success, its not by being an outside iconoclast, committed to your particular brand of Utopian idealism(Ron Paul) or a god squadder(Cruz, Huckabee etc), its by playing to the Republican base, there clearly is that sentiment, it has trumped(:o) everything else.

Billy86

AS best I can see from a glance, Trump is 103 delegates off 1,237. With them being winner-take-all states, surely that would mean winning California alone (172 delegates) or a trio of NJ (51), Montana (27) and South Dakota (29) gets him in automatically? That's before looking at the three remaining proportional states (Oregon - 28, Washington - 44, New Mexico - 24) which he should at least pick up enough from to not need one of Montana/South Dakota of said trio.

Unless I'm mistaking something here, Trump's biggest threat to not reaching 1,237 is dying. So long as he manages to not do that, I can't see any conceivable way he fails to get the nomination. Paddy Pwoer has him at 1/100, compared to Hillary's 1/40 odds for nominations for what it's worth, though they have her at 1/3 and him at 5/2 in terms of the election itself.

ancapailldorcha

If Trump fails to take the 1,237 but is the sole remaining candidate will there be a contested convention?

eire4

TheDoctor wrote: »

Sanders trails in poll for Oregon primary next Tuesday. Surprised by that. Very liberal part of the country over there. See Washington result earlier.

You are correct about Oregon being a very liberal state. However for the Democratic primary it is a closed primary meaning only registered Democrats can vote in this primary and Sanders has fared much worse in closed primaries rather then ones which are open. Also Washington state was done via the caucus method and Sanders has tended to dominate that format.
It could be very interesting what happens next Tuesday in Oregon as the Sanders camp certainly seems to think they have a shot at another upset win there. Kentucky looks likely to be a Clinton win though.

ECO_Mental

A lot of weird stuff coming out about the Donald at the moment now that people are really digging into stuff and I reckon there is A LOT of stuff there that the Dems are holding on to just waiting to pounce.

Won't release his tax affairs

Him posing as a fake publicity agent for himself for 20 years just to spread stories like Madonna wanting to date him etc......

His butler saying on Facebook that Obama should have been shot! And when confronted to clarify, he said no he should have been hung instead...

Won't say what his tax rate is.

The Washington Post have assigned 20 journalists' full time to go over his business dealings for the past 40 year's and they are going to dig up some serious stuff I reckon. But I have been wrong about him all along and his supporters are blind to any negative stories for some reason.

Billy86

ECO_Mental wrote: »

A lot of weird stuff coming out about the Donald at the moment now that people are really digging into stuff and I reckon there is A LOT of stuff there that the Dems are holding on to just waiting to pounce.

Won't release his tax affairs

Him posing as a fake publicity agent for himself for 20 years just to spread stories like Madonna wanting to date him etc......

His butler saying on Facebook that Obama should have been shot! And when confronted to clarify, he said no he should have been hung instead...

Won't say what his tax rate is.

The Washington Post have assigned 20 journalists' full time to go over his business dealings for the past 40 year's and they are going to dig up some serious stuff I reckon. But I have been wrong about him all along and his supporters are blind to any negative stories for some reason.

The interesting thing here is that he is targeting the lowest common denominator, people who will actively cheer him on as he boasts about being able to shoot a man in the street and not lose any voters (effectively them cheers him as he calls them idiots) or who would cheer on a video of a fellow supporter punching a protester in the face without provocation while Trump eggs him and the others on, only to turn around and claim no Trump supporters ever initiated (in some cases, were never even involved) in any violence whatsoever.

Of course his big issue here is that that carry on will win a GOP nomination, in no small part because they have been appealing for years to that same common denominator who will actively go out and vote against their own interests, while being proud to do so. This is why we are seeing him desperately try to get back to the centre lately, but in my opinion he never planned on winning in the first place (really wanted to sell books as much as anything - he loves bringing out new books during election cycles, and campaigning/flirting with campaigning as publicity for it), and I reckon he's gone way too far off on the right and offered way too many soundbites of such rhetoric for a general.

It's why I reckon Sanders would have crushed him in an election, but the problem the Dems gave themselves is that Hillary is cold and quite far from likable. Outside of those who would directly benefit from a Clinton presidency over a Sanders one, I have found it peculiar how she has got so many votes to be honest - plenty of skeletons and not an ounce of charisma.

eire4

Billy86 wrote: »

The interesting thing here is that he is targeting the lowest common denominator, people who will actively cheer him on as he boasts about being able to shoot a man in the street and not lose any voters (effectively them cheers him as he calls them idiots) or who would cheer on a video of a fellow supporter punching a protester in the face without provocation while Trump eggs him and the others on, only to turn around and claim no Trump supporters ever initiated (in some cases, were never even involved) in any violence whatsoever.

Of course his big issue here is that that carry on will win a GOP nomination, in no small part because they have been appealing for years to that same common denominator who will actively go out and vote against their own interests, while being proud to do so. This is why we are seeing him desperately try to get back to the centre lately, but in my opinion he never planned on winning in the first place (really wanted to sell books as much as anything - he loves bringing out new books during election cycles, and campaigning/flirting with campaigning as publicity for it), and I reckon he's gone way too far off on the right and offered way too many soundbites of such rhetoric for a general.

It's why I reckon Sanders would have crushed him in an election, but the problem the Dems gave themselves is that Hillary is cold and quite far from likable. Outside of those who would directly benefit from a Clinton presidency over a Sanders one, I have found it peculiar how she has got so many votes to be honest - plenty of skeletons and not an ounce of charisma.

When it comes to Clinton lets not forget the Democratic Party set up the primary process to help her win so they had alomst all the southern states vote early which have been by far her best states and where she racked up her early vote lead and delegate lead. Since then though things have changed as more and more people hear what Sanders has to say and they, contrast that with Clinton's more corporate Democrat stances.
The result being the Democratic party have backed themselves into a corner in a year when they should not only have been able to easily win the white house against the candidate with the worst unfavourability ratings of any presidential candidate but probably win the senate and make inroads into the house. Instead they have the second worst candidate in terms of her unfavourability ratings and while they may still win the white house they could very well lose it and that would leave the country quite possiblity in all but total Republican control at both a state and federal level.
Their nightmare scenario for them really looms large now as Sanders continues to win states with his upset win in Indiana and his win this week in West Virginia having really exposed what a weak candidate she is. Flipping things over from a Republican perspective it has to be frustrating for them to have such a bad candidate as Trump as their nomination for president as Clinton is so very beatable and winning the white house as I said would basically give them complete control of the US at both state and federal level and any kind of half way decent Republican candidate would probably be able to beat Clinton given how weak she is.


Bottom line as I have said before the 2 presumptive candidates for the 2 party cartel on power in DC just illustrate how broken and corrupt the American political system is and how it simply does not function in a manner that represents the best interests of the vast majority of Americans.

Black Swan

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If Trump fails to take the 1,237 but is the sole remaining candidate will there be a contested convention?

The GOP may play that card just for appearances sake, but ultimately they will confirm Trump during their convention 18-21 July 2016 in Columbus, Ohio, no matter if he falls short, meets, or exceeds that number. And given that he is the only Republican candidate actually running in future state primaries, he more than likely will get more than the necessary delegates (while giving the false impression of overwhelming wins due to the supporters of the 2 recent drop-out GOP candidates staying at home).

What will be interesting during an otherwise boring convention will be whom Trump will pick as his VP running mate. Odds are he will pick someone from the established GOP, no matter what he has said about the GOP during the campaign. He needs someone with qualifications in governance, which he lacks, perhaps a state governor? Will he pick a female or Hispanic or both to appeal to those voter segments, or another White male like himself?

MadYaker

He can't pick another old white guy. Has to be a black/hispanic male or a female. Or even better, a black/hispanic female. Condoleeza Rice seems like a logical choice. No idea if she'd go for it or not. She ticks all the boxes though.

Thargor

He wont pick her after all he's said about Bush, she was inner circle.

Amazingfun

MadYaker wrote: »

He can't pick another old white guy. Has to be a black/hispanic male or a female. Or even better, a black/hispanic female. Condoleeza Rice seems like a logical choice. No idea if she'd go for it or not. She ticks all the boxes though.

Uh no. She was part of Team Bush and the Iraq mess. No way he'd pick her after all he said about the Bush's and the huge mistake going into Iraq was.
Hopefully it's Jeff Sessions.

JPNelsforearm

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/white-workers-bernie-sanders-clinton-primary-racism/

Good article from the Jacobin on Trump/Sanders though I obv dont agree with its conclusions/solutions(muh socialism).

"Instead of acknowledging the size and importance of this part of the electorate, Democratic Party elites have simply constructed a new narrative to suit their interests — a narrative that was on display after West Virginia. Following Sanders’s win a significant chunk of the punditocracy came to the conclusion, mostly by abusing the hell out of exit polls, that a vote for the Jewish socialist was actually a vote for white supremacy.

After decades of being told white workers would never support socialism because they’re racist, we’re now told that they support the socialist candidate because they are racist. Yes, this is where liberals are in the year 2016."

This article is why I think Trumpism is here to stay, Trump(and to be fair, Sanders does when he is not pandering) gives a voice or a politcal outlet to people who have none, it is opportunism on his part, but the demographic is there, and ignored.

Black Swan

MadYaker wrote: »

He can't pick another old white guy. Has to be a black/hispanic male or a female. Or even better, a black/hispanic female. Condoleeza Rice seems like a logical choice. No idea if she'd go for it or not. She ticks all the boxes though.

Rice is too strongly associated with the GW Bush administration's Great Recession, doubling the federal deficit, and the 2 longest wars in US history, so methinks she will not be Trump's VP running mate. Then again, a female VP running mate would help Trump greatly given his huge unfavourability ratings with women across several different and recent polls ranging in the 60 and 70 percentiles. Added to this, there has never been a female VP in the history of the US, so this might offset Hillary Clinton's bid to women as 1st female president?

Furthermore, Trump has ZERO governance experience having never been elected to government office (now running for the highest post in US government) and needs a qualified VP running mate with governance experience, so picking a female with excellent governance background would check-off two boxes for 8 November 2016. If he picks one with state governor experience rather than DC congressional or executive branch experience, he can pretend and claim that such a governor is not tainted by Washington corruption, which is the kind of nonsense that his supporters might buy (e.g., any position in government may or may not be corrupt, be they DC or elsewhere; and for that matter, any position in business may or may not be corrupt too, especially heavy "Deal" makers).

Given these considerations, Mary Fallin, Republican Governor of Oklahoma might be one for Trump to seriously consider. She also has conservative credentials, so this might serve to draw in the GOP conservatives that are unhappy with a middle-of-the-road Trump? Susana Martinez Governor of New Mexico, as well as being chairwoman of the Republican Governors Association may attract the Hispanic voter demographic, given that there has never been an Hispanic VP in US history. I've also heard Nikki Haley's name thrown about, the Southern Carolina Governor, who gave the Republican reply to Obama's 2016 State of the Union Address. She is also a possibility, but methinks Mary Fallin or Susana Martinez would be better choices. Who knows?

The worst choice Trump could pick would be Carson, who also has ZERO governance experience for the 2nd highest office in US government, and the Black voter demographic is already firmly in Hillary (and Bill) Clinton's camp, especially after the rally problems that Trump has experienced during his 2015-2016 primary campaigns with Black activists and protesters. Furthermore, Carson's well known pyramid grain storage position makes him look ridiculous, and a joke better featured in SNL than as the 2nd highest office holder.

titan18

Lots of backlash against the DNC over Nevada caucuses.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279930-nevada-dem-convention-devolves-into-chaos

I know all the stuff about the Supreme Court nominations, but really hard to vote for Hillary or Democrats with how shamefully they're treating Bernie's supporters.

Kind of hope Trump wins. He'll probably only get 4 years but even if Hillary sucks, she'll probably continue to cheat her way to a 2nd term.