2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well Trump is a textbook demagogue and inciting the fears and prejudices of the masses is part of how he operates.

ancapailldorcha

eire4, please read the charter before posting again. Thank you.

eire4

Yosef.coen wrote: »

Interesting topic. When it comes to terrorism Israel knows first hand of the dangers of letting kind gloves get in the way.
Take for example the separation barrier that was started in 2002 as a reaction to continued Palestinian suicide bombings.
The vast majority of Israeli citizens approved the measure. 84% in a 2004 poll.

Likewise when Operation Protective Edge was in full flow in 2014 94% of Israeli's supported it and did not think it was excessive.

Terrorism hardens attitudes and if other incidents like the one in San Bernardino happen during the 2016 campaign then you will see growing support for harsher measures.

Trump is an interesting character but he is not stupid. Playing the media like a puppet master. I see him as a reaction though to the failure of the American political system as a whole. People look at the Clinton's, the Bush's, the Obama's of this world and know they are all bought and paid for by the same vested interests and lobbyists. Hillary Clinton would be the classic example of this. Does she ever tell the truth? Trump is a reaction to this, people have given up on the system and are treating it as a joke as the system with its slick media sound bites, lies, double talk treats the electorate as a joke.

Trump is quite the accomplished lier himself in public and has been getting plenty of practice at it lately. His infamous thousands of Muslims were celebrating in Jersey City when the twin towers came down being a good example. Agree with you on Bush, Clinton and Obama being examples of how broken and dysfunctional the current corrupt American politcal system is. But to suggest Trump is the solution no thanks. He is a demagogue.

eire4

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I have defended Trump before and said he has balls to say things as they are - however I think his latest statements have been a bit extreme.
I think he means well and has genuine concerns, but his solutions do deal with them are a bit wild - but I think this is hard talk to get coverage
and support from hard line Republicans.

However people comparing him with Hitler is just as ludicrous.

Do I think Donald Trump is the same as Hitler absolutely not. That is ridiculous to say. However it is fair to say that he has taken the same kind of approach as Hitler did in many instances. The hope is that he will not rise to power in the sense of ebing the next presidenet of the US.

eire4

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The bit in bold reminds me of how little people on this thread, and Irish people in general, know about everyday Americans.

It's not as simple as GOP = Bad Dems = Good as many seem to think it is.

It's far more complex than that, there are multiple crossovers.

An example would be older generation Irish and Irish American.
They tend to have conservative views on abortion, gay marriage etc, plus they tend to have a racist slant, but we have an assumption that they all vote Democrat.

I blame the mainstream media in Ireland for failing to properly portray the American voter, and especially the ones that vote GOP.
The GOP are all crazy line is easier to use it seems.

Well when about a third of Republican voters are consistently backing Trump (an openly bigoted and racist demagogue) in polls I think it is very fair to say a sizable portion of Republican supporters are way off the deep end. Then when you add in Ted Cruz's supprt that number gets higher. Cruz may not be as extreme as Trump in his public utterances but he is going for a very similar target audience.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Years of demonization and open sectarianism from various parts bearing fruit, quite possibly.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

David L. Altheide (November 2006) in Terrorism and the Politics of Fear, Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 6 (4), 415-439, qualitatively examined 5 US nationally distributed major newspapers, reporting results suggesting that politicians would identify in their audience the beliefs and assumptions of danger, risk, and fear of terrorism, and then promote and exploit such to advance the acceptance of their policies. This study seems an elaboration of the obvious, but nevertheless empirical sources carry a bit more weight than our mutual opinions here in the US Politics forum.

This suggests to me that those presidential candidates that master the politics of fear may do so to not only advance their policies as concluded in the article, but also promote and exploit fear among most citizens (not just the small number of nutjobs) to get themselves elected president 2016 as the "Great (Whatever) Hope" to reduce danger, risk, and fear.

Of course the nomination and election processes are more complex than this single factor, but to what extent would the politics of fear be contributory and positively associated with 2016 presidential election?

InTheTrees

Will Trump still be in the lead in July? And if so will republican leadership pick a candidate other than Trump and who will it be? And will Trump then run as an independent?

It'll be fascinating to see. Personally I dont think there's a chance in hell of Trump getting the nomination even if he wins the public vote.

First Up

InTheTrees wrote: »

Will Trump still be in the lead in July? And if so will republican leadership pick a candidate other than Trump and who will it be? And will Trump then run as an independent?

It'll be fascinating to see. Personally I dont think there's a chance in hell of Trump getting the nomination even if he wins the public vote.

If he comes out on top of the nomination process, there is nothing they can do to stop him. If he loses and decides to run as an independent he not only guarantees Hillary's win (she will anyway) but also tears the GOP apart. As I said in an earlier post, its a disaster of their own making as they have been fanning the loony flames for years and it has just come back to bite them.

As for the "other" candidate, in all probability, Trump will crash and burn well before July. My guess would be Rubio ahead of Cruz but the chaos that Trump has created makes it hard to predict what will happen; a new "none of the above" candidate is a possibility.

Its a good time for the Right Wing Entertainment Industry but things will eventually get serious.

ECO_Mental

Don't think rubio is up to it, he is only a puppy really. What is he, one term senator, no experience the big dogs will carve him up. He looks nervous all the time like I can't believe I made it this far, I am going to get found out soon....

InTheTrees

First Up wrote: »

If he comes out on top of the nomination process, there is nothing they can do to stop him.

The republican party will nominate a candidate at their convention in July.

Having the most delegates going into the convention is no guarantee of securing the nomination. There's "super delagates" (party members) who can tip the nomination any way the party leadership decides if it isn't going the way they want. Its called a "brokered convention".

InTheTrees

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Don't think rubio is up to it, he is only a puppy really. What is he, one term senator, no experience the big dogs will carve him up. He looks nervous all the time like I can't believe I made it this far, I am going to get found out soon....

There's also talk of his "zipper problem" (two children with a woman not his wife) and the fact that its possibly just cruel rumours being put out by his opponents.

First Up

InTheTrees wrote:

Having the most delegates going into the convention is no guarantee of securing the nomination. There's "super delagates" (party members) who can tip the nomination any way the party leadership decides if it isn't going the way they want. Its called a "brokered convention".

A brokered convention only comes into play if none of the candidates has secured enough delegates to be deemed the winner. There is no precedent for a candidate who has enough delegates being denied the nomination.

First Up

ECO_Mental wrote:

Don't think rubio is up to it, he is only a puppy really. What is he, one term senator, no experience the big dogs will carve him up. He looks nervous all the time like I can't believe I made it this far, I am going to get found out soon....

I'm not saying he is up to it but he might have broader appeal than Cruz, who at the moment is the only other serious contender.
It could all change though. I doubt any of the other declared candidates can make up the ground but someone new could appear out of left field.

InTheTrees

First Up wrote: »

A brokered convention only comes into play if none of the candidates has secured enough delegates to be deemed the winner. There is no precedent for a candidate who has enough delegates being denied the nomination.

No precedent but its within the rules and Thats what some republicans are saying. And how exciting would that be?

Then Trump would be compelled to run as an independent.

First Up

InTheTrees wrote:

No precedent but its within the rules and Thats what some republicans are saying. And how exciting would that be?

Within the rules to do what? If a candidate has enough delegates, they get the nomination. If not, it becomes a contested convention, at which they keep voting until someone wins. The term "brokered" just means there is wheeling and dealing to reduce the number of candidates and get delegates to swop until the winner emerges.

That used to happen regularly with both parties but in recent years the winner has been established well in advance so the convention is just a formality.

If they get to Cleveland without a clear winner, there will be wheeling and dealing but if Trump or anyone else assembles enough delegates to win (on the first count if you like), the party bosses can do nothing about it. I see talk of someone like Paul Ryan being brought in as the "brokered" (or compromise) nominee but if Trump has the votes....

I don't think he will and the party bosses would love for him to disappear. But I don't know if they have the time to promote another candidate to the extent that makes him/her strong enough to coalesce around by July.

It will be interesting.

InTheTrees

First Up wrote: »

Within the rules to do what? If a candidate has enough delegates, they get the nomination.

There are "super delegates" which are essentially party members. And they're unaffiliated to any block emerging from the primaries. They can vote any way they please, and their votes carry more weight. It is within the rules for the superdelegates to decide the nominee contrary to the results of the delegates vote.

Its been all over the news these last few days as republican leadership starts to lose patience with trump. I dont think its ever been done against a candidate with a such a large margin but it is within the rules and watching the disarray the republicans are in they could do anything at this point.

First Up

InTheTrees wrote:

There are "super delegates" which are essentially party members. And they're unaffiliated to any block emerging from the primaries. They can vote any way they please, and their votes carry more weight. It is within the rules for the superdelegates to decide the nominee contrary to the results of the delegates vote.

Their votes carry the same weight as anyone elses. They are free to vote for any candidate but they are not there to do the bidding of the party bosses.
Their votes get counted along with every other. They do not have power of veto as you seem to believe.

Black Swan

For clarification purposes at this point, just because Trump leads in the polls does not mean he will automatically lead in delegates or superdelegates during the convention. The presidential polls are separately run by various organisations, some of which may be (unfortunately) influenced by one party or another, while yet others are more independent. Trump will probably insist the contrary, claiming that the delegates should follow the polls, but the polls are not votes in primary elections. If Trump continues to lead in the polls, but does not get a convincing number of delegates for the GOP nomination, and is not nominated, he will probably break his 3 September 2015 party loyalty pledge (which he threatened to do a few days ago), and run independent. If so, the November 2016 election may be similar in some ways to the 1992 general election where yet another unqualified billionaire businessman Ross Perot ran independent, costing Republican George H.W. Bush a 2nd term, and allowing Bill Clinton to win. Although there are some obvious differences, will history repeat itself with another Clinton win?

Black Swan

Black Swan wrote: »

Of course the nomination and election processes are more complex than this single factor, but to what extent would the politics of fear be contributory and positively associated with 2016 presidential election?

As yet another point of clarification, "positively" associated was not a value assertion, rather an hypothesized directional relationship; i.e., as politics of fear increases, election to president increases. In like manner, if "negatively" associated, as one variable increases, the other decreases.

First Up

Black Swan wrote:

For clarification purposes at this point, just because Trump leads in the polls does not mean he will automatically lead in delegates or superdelegates during the convention. The presidential polls are separately run by various organisations, some of which may be (unfortunately) influenced by one party or another, while yet others are more independent. Trump will probably insist the contrary, claiming that the delegates should follow the polls, but the polls are not votes in primary elections. If Trump continues to lead in the polls, but does not get a convincing number of delegates for the GOP nomination, and is not nominated, he will probably break his 3 September 2015 party loyalty pledge (which he threatened to do a few days ago), and run independent. If so, the November 2016 election may be similar in some ways to the 1992 general election where yet another unqualified billionaire businessman Ross Perot ran independent, costing Republican George H.W. Bush a 2nd term, and allowing Bill Clinton to win. Although there are some obvious differences, will history repeat itself with another Clinton win?

Black Swan wrote:

For clarification purposes at this point, just because Trump leads in the polls does not mean he will automatically lead in delegates or superdelegates during the convention.

Absolutely; his lead in the polls may not be reflected in the actual primaries, where most delegates are decided.

First Up

Cruz has opened up a decent lead in Iowa.

Manach

Mr. Cruz has also forwarded a proposal that might benifit workers in Silicon Valley rather than the companies by suggesting Visa reform. While this would not likely gain him such campaign funds from the Tech company owners, it does seem to at least given him a talking point in that community, looking at Slashdot's comment section: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/15/12/11/1915248/ted-cruz-wants-minimum-h-1b-wage-of-110000?sbsrc=md. He might be talking a leaf from Mr. Sanders.

eire4

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes the numbers who want to act in an openly sectarian way is very scary indeed. Sadly it shows how effective fear mongering can be in the US.


In terms of the second poll on Trump's proposal what you leave out is the percentage of Republicans who agree with Trump's openly bigoted stance which was 46% while only 36% or Republicans opposed it. So while certainly bigotry and racism comes in all political shades it clearly comes in much more bigger numbers with the current Republican Party supporters.

Black Swan

Canadian born Ted Cruz appears to be closing the gap between him and Donald Trump when comparing the last 2 NBC/WSJ polls. Trump went from 23% to 27% while Cruz climbed from 10% to 22% between polls taken 25-29 October and 6-9 December 2015, the difference in the most recent poll falling somewhat close in confidence intervals when comparing the two presidential candidates.

Given that Ted Cruz is one of the established GOP candidates running, and Trump an outsider Republican should be cause for the GOP leadership to hope that this trend continues and Cruz passes Trump in most polls before the primaries.

Today's RCP average shows Trump leading Cruz by 31.4% to 16.3%. I would be very cautious about referencing the RCP average numbers given for candidates, as you really cannot add very different polls together as if they were all conducted by the same organisation with the same methodologies, which they are not. Now if RCP used Z-scores and tested the differences between different poll distributions along with a rigourous modeling strategy, we might have something to discuss, especially with tracking polls, but simple averaging of poll percentages is statistically meaningless. Consequently, I would recommend that you only compare the same polling organisation against itself at different time periods (tracking), as we have here with NBC/WSJ, than to exercise blind faith in the RCP polling averages.

Thargor

Trump wont go quietly into the night, Id say he'll go independent if its anything short of a total wipeout in the polls.

Christy42

Thargor wrote: »

Trump wont go quietly into the night, Id say he'll go independent if its anything short of a total wipeout in the polls.

That could well kill any hope of a Republican getting elected as he would split a lot of the Republican vote. I wonder if the threat to go independent is to force their hand so he gets picked.

First Up

Christy42 wrote:

That could well kilol any hope of a Republican getting elected as he would split a lot of the Republican vote. I wonder if the threat to go independent is to force their hand so he gets picked.

I think he'll get bored and quit when he thinks he has gotten enough publicity.

MonkeyTennis

Thing is, how does he just go back to being Donald Trump again?