2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

There are polls that show the reverse in fact that has been the trend for the most part since the summer.
Either way Clinton is still the clear favourite on the Democratic side but it is not a forgone conclusion as it once seemed to be.

Perhaps in NH there is, but I haven't seen any national polls indicated the reverse.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps in NH there is, but I haven't seen any national polls indicated the reverse.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

Since the summer national polls have shown Clinton's lead shrinking from its once massive 60 odd point leads in the teens to low 20's.

Amerika

eire4 wrote: »

Since the summer national polls have shown Clinton's lead shrinking from its once massive 60 odd point leads in the teens to low 20's.

Yes, but since the debate they've been on the rise, which is my point.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

Yes, but since the debate they've been on the rise, which is my point.

Yes that is true nationally a reverse of the general trend since the summer.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I've seen polls that state Clinton won, and other that claim Sanders won. The the only polls that really matter since the debate are the ones showing Clinton numbers rising and Sanders numbers falling. Regardless, as I said he's not in it to win it and his giving cover to Clinton's for the email scandals, which could bring about criminal prosecution, was the catalyst that caused her numbers to rise. And Obama is trying to influence a criminal investigation of her by stating her actions posed no threat (and FBI agents are hopping mad about it). But the head of the DOJ is a political appointed spot, so no doubt justice in the matter will not prevail.

What are you basing your conclusion on? Why run a populist campaign? It just doesn't make sense to turn down corporate funds, ask for funds from joe American and then go '**** it, it was all a ruse so I could rant about Social Security and the bad soup I got at the deli.' Not only is that just bad form, it would also set back the independents movement for another 10 or more years.

Lots of people started this by not even mentioning he was in the race, then they went on to "he has no chance" and a few of those same people are interviewing Bernie and discussing what he needs to do to win - things which are not impossible, like getting Americans to understand what democratic socialism actually is (not communism). The recent Bill Maher interview was quirky because he goes into it thinking Bernie is a quack, and comes out of it doubting himself.

Wompa1

Overheal wrote: »

What are you basing your conclusion on? Why run a populist campaign? It just doesn't make sense to turn down corporate funds, ask for funds from joe American and then go '**** it, it was all a ruse so I could rant about Social Security and the bad soup I got at the deli.' Not only is that just bad form, it would also set back the independents movement for another 10 or more years.

Lots of people started this by not even mentioning he was in the race, then they went on to "he has no chance" and a few of those same people are interviewing Bernie and discussing what he needs to do to win - things which are not impossible, like getting Americans to understand what democratic socialism actually is (not communism). The recent Bill Maher interview was quirky because he goes into it thinking Bernie is a quack, and comes out of it doubting himself.

The dialog:
Joe Soap: "Socialism doesn't work, look at Europe"
Supporter: "Their high standard of living?"
Joe Soap: "Their economy is in the toilet"
Supporter: "Yet, the middle class seems to be happier and living a higher quality of life"
Joe Soap: "That doesn't matter. Their economy is in the toilet. Socialism doesn't work"
Supporter: "What about the Nordic countries?"
Joe Soap: "We're not Norway or Denmark. We're the greatest nation in the world. How dare you suggest we need to be like anybody else. You're un-American"

And Scene!

In fairness. I think Bill Maher said at the beginning of the interview that he was endorsing Sanders...I thought that was Sanders weakest interview that I've seen.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

What are you basing your conclusion on? Why run a populist campaign? It just doesn't make sense to turn down corporate funds, ask for funds from joe American and then go '**** it, it was all a ruse so I could rant about Social Security and the bad soup I got at the deli.' Not only is that just bad form, it would also set back the independents movement for another 10 or more years.

Lots of people started this by not even mentioning he was in the race, then they went on to "he has no chance" and a few of those same people are interviewing Bernie and discussing what he needs to do to win - things which are not impossible, like getting Americans to understand what democratic socialism actually is (not communism). The recent Bill Maher interview was quirky because he goes into it thinking Bernie is a quack, and comes out of it doubting himself.

A lot get into the race with no hopes or real intentions of winning. But they do plan on getting something out of it, like powerful positions in the winning administration for throwing their and their followers support behind them.

And he is a Socialist if you haven't heard, and therefore no chance of winning the general election.

Wompa1

Amerika wrote: »

A lot get into the race with no hopes or real intentions of winning. But they do plan on getting something out of it, like powerful positions in the winning administration for throwing their and their followers support behind them.

And he is a Socialist if you haven't heard, and therefore no chance of winning the general election.

If somehow he wins the primary and ends up facing Jeb Bush, Donald Trump or Ben Carson. I think he will win.

Not so sure he'd beat Marco Rubio but Rubio is not racist enough to garner the same level of support as the leaders.

Memnoch

So the republicans have now resorted to adding fake redactions to try and besmirch Hillary.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123155/benghazi-witch-hunt-against-hillary-backfiring-bills-impeachment

The comparison became inescapable this weekend, when the top Democrat on the Benghazi committee revealed that its Republican chairman, Trey Gowdy, had fabricated a redaction to Clinton’s emails to make it look like she’d endangered a spy, and the CIA had busted her. Gowdy even mimicked intelligence community vernacular, designating the redaction as undertaken to protect “sources and methods,” without disclosing that he was the redactor or that the CIA had cleared the name he redacted for release.

They've lost any pretence of credibility they might have had.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you are going to reference US failed diplomatic relations with Iran, and how such failures contributed to the destabilization of Iran and the Middle East, in all fairness Ronald Reagan's obscene Iran-Contra Affair needs be included too. This raises yet another issue that goes beyond his contribution to the Iran mess, depending upon your perspective: was Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair an exemplification of state-sponsored terrorism in Central America?

The ultimate craic that occurs to me is the positive regard (almost worship in many cases) that so many Republicans have for Ronald Reagan, the 1st president to double the federal deficit largely as a result of his Cold War arms race. Of course if someone had large blocks of equities in Military Industrial Complex corporations, they would love Reagan back then in terms of pursuing their self-interests for capital gains.

The obscenely massive US military budget of today, the largest in the world, exceeding the combined military budgets of all 25 EU nations, is a huge part of the massively wasteful US federal government (created by BOTH Democrat and Republican congresses and administrations), and is yet another example of the spirit and intent of Cold War arms race Reaganomics (in reality and practice, not flowery theory). And it was a bloody Republican general and president that warned the American citizen about the abusive power of the Military Industrial Complex, but no one listened then or today to Dwight D. Eisenhower. How 2016 presidential candidates can speak about reducing the federal deficit, while either proposing increased Military Industrial Complex fundiing (or a token reduction) exemplifies their contradictory and spurious polemics.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

And he is a Socialist if you haven't heard, and therefore no chance of winning the general election.

The idea that Sanders is too "extreme" to win the general, but that Trump, Carson, etc, are within the "Overton window" is a startling thing to claim. About any Western democracy. Regardless of whether it's true or not.

alaimacerc

Black Swan wrote: »

Not sure how you arrive by your one-party conclusion given that you admit you "don't fully understand the rules of TerrorBall."

Not sure you're quite up to speed with the Daily Show and other expositions of the concept, but I think you're mistaking "admission" for "set-up line".

I would assume that the way past administrations have played, regardless if they were Democrat or Republican, have been humiliating failures at TerrorBall.

The point is that narrative is relentlessly that the "something must be done!" and "get tough with the turrists" rhetoric consistently favours the Republicans as an issue. Actual competence of administration or coherence of the policy thinking notwithstanding.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

eire4

Amerika wrote: »

A lot get into the race with no hopes or real intentions of winning. But they do plan on getting something out of it, like powerful positions in the winning administration for throwing their and their followers support behind them.

And he is a Socialist if you haven't heard, and therefore no chance of winning the general election.

Obviously it is only my opinion but I would disagree that Sanders would have no chance at winning the presidential election. In fact I think if he got that far he would have a very good shot. I think by far the harder task for him is to win the Democratic nomination.

Overheal

If he wins the Democratic nomination, he can win the presidency no question, with the backing of Democrats as well as a large number of independents who support his emphatic stance on campaign finance reform among other things. Having also excited younger Americans back out to the polls this cycle, the democrats will either way stand a higher chance to win given the indicators that democrats win when there is a higher voter turnout.

If he runs as a third party having lost the nomination, it will be partisan politics as usual.


Speaking of Benghazi,

Republican Leader Admits He Altered Documents to Frame Hillary Clinton on Benghazi

Which incidentally is what they fcuked up in getting caught doing in 1998 during the Lewinsky investigation http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-05-11/republicans-replay-1998-on-benghazi

Do elephants forget now all of a sudden?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

People keep saying that but the truth is they don't know what a 'socialist' is.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

Joe Biden is out and will not run.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Bernie/Biden '16.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

We'll see.

Either way that's a silly thing to say given nobody announces a running mate until the primaries are resolved.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PressRun

I'm not all that surprised that Biden isn't running. He's had a whole lot going on in his personal life these last few months, and when I saw him on Colbert recently, he looked very much like a man who needed a break. Colbert asked if he would run, and he said something along the lines of "nobody should sign up to do the job if their heart isn't in it", and I don't think his heart is in it right now. It's a shame that his personal and professional lives have collided like this at this precise moment, because I think he could have given Clinton a bit to worry about if he did throw his hat in.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

spideog7

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

LOL, I believe you are wrong. Even the mainstream media are coming around, he'll have a rough time for sure. Not because his policies are unachievable or outlandish but because his opponents will just scream 'taxes'. He needs to put more substance to his claims and have a real plan with actual numbers. Of course if he was to get elected he won't achieve half of what he wants anyway so I don't know what everyone is so scared of.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

Not sure Hillary is having a great performance at the Benghazi hearing, she started off well with her opening statement, but her face looks redder than normal which is troubling. Then to read her face, it kinds of reads that she is not comfortable explaining - to Republican questioning compared to the soft questions of Cummings.