Deathray 2,941 Posted January 31, 2016 a) The polls fuckng wrong Bernie Sanders v Donald Trump and the imminent collapse of the us. or c) Hilary Clinton v Jeb Bush and the slow path towards collapse of the us continuing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 894 Posted January 31, 2016 a) The polls fuckng wrong Bernie Sanders v Donald Trump and the imminent collapse of the us. or c) Hilary Clinton v Jeb Bush and the slow path towards collapse of the us continuing. Although I have major concerns about both parties and all candidates, it may not be as bleak as this. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shroud 19 Posted January 31, 2016 If I may add some additional comments on Donald Trump. Political Correctness has ran so rampant in the US, many who actually dislike the fellow a good deal, yet are still pleased somebody will say exactly how they fell about matters. I seriously doubt if the Republican establishment will allow him to actually have the nomination even if procedural trickery has to be used to deny it to him at the Republican convention. I also expect he will run a 3rd party bid if this happens, and possibly win. Former NY City Mayor Bloomberg has said he will ALSO run if certain events happen; he can certainly afford to. Trump running 3rd party will probably be enough to get him to run as well. If Hillary angers Senator Sanders' supporters enough, many of them most likely won't vote for HER. I expect she will get the Democratic nomination in the end after a considerable struggle, but Sanders has no reason to withdraw if he loses Iowa. He has many strong supporters, and will almost certainly win several states between now, and this coming summer. Meaning he will have a considerable number of delegates when the convention arrives for the formal nomination. At that point, Hillary further angers or "brushes off" Sanders, he just might be talked into running an "Indie" bid as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadGuy 1,614 Posted January 31, 2016 I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but... DEMOCRATIC Clinton: 60% Sanders: 40% REPUBLICAN Trump: 50% Rubio: 20% Cruz: 20% Carson: 3% Kasich: 3% Christie: 2% Paul: 2% Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted January 31, 2016 If I may add some additional comments on Donald Trump. Political Correctness has ran so rampant in the US, many who actually dislike the fellow a good deal, yet are still pleased somebody will say exactly how they fell about matters. I seriously doubt if the Republican establishment will allow him to actually have the nomination even if procedural trickery has to be used to deny it to him at the Republican convention. I also expect he will run a 3rd party bid if this happens, and possibly win. Former NY City Mayor Bloomberg has said he will ALSO run if certain events happen; he can certainly afford to. Trump running 3rd party will probably be enough to get him to run as well. If Hillary angers Senator Sanders' supporters enough, many of them most likely won't vote for HER. I expect she will get the Democratic nomination in the end after a considerable struggle, but Sanders has no reason to withdraw if he loses Iowa. He has many strong supporters, and will almost certainly win several states between now, and this coming summer. Meaning he will have a considerable number of delegates when the convention arrives for the formal nomination. At that point, Hillary further angers or "brushes off" Sanders, he just might be talked into running an "Indie" bid as well. I think it is clear that the Repulblican establishment have their hands tied already. They might not like Trump, but they prefer him to the man second in the polls - Ted Cruz. The only thing that can stop Trump from taking the nomination is a conveniently timed assassin's bullet. Not an impossibility. It is, after all, American politics. I had convinced myself that Hillary would take the Democrat nomination quite easily, but that may have been because her opponents were not headline names over here in the UK. Sadly I think the Democrats might elect their Jeremy Corbyn in Bernie Sanders. If they do, brace yourself for President Trump. I expect he'll invade my country first, bombing the homeowners on the Menie estate for not selling up for his golf course... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,662 Posted January 31, 2016 If I may add some additional comments on Donald Trump. Political Correctness has ran so rampant in the US, many who actually dislike the fellow a good deal, yet are still pleased somebody will say exactly how they fell about matters. I seriously doubt if the Republican establishment will allow him to actually have the nomination even if procedural trickery has to be used to deny it to him at the Republican convention. I also expect he will run a 3rd party bid if this happens, and possibly win. Former NY City Mayor Bloomberg has said he will ALSO run if certain events happen; he can certainly afford to. Trump running 3rd party will probably be enough to get him to run as well. If Hillary angers Senator Sanders' supporters enough, many of them most likely won't vote for HER. I expect she will get the Democratic nomination in the end after a considerable struggle, but Sanders has no reason to withdraw if he loses Iowa. He has many strong supporters, and will almost certainly win several states between now, and this coming summer. Meaning he will have a considerable number of delegates when the convention arrives for the formal nomination. At that point, Hillary further angers or "brushes off" Sanders, he just might be talked into running an "Indie" bid as well. I think it is clear that the Repulblican establishment have their hands tied already. They might not like Trump, but they prefer him to the man second in the polls - Ted Cruz. The only thing that can stop Trump from taking the nomination is a conveniently timed assassin's bullet. Not an impossibility. It is, after all, American politics. I had convinced myself that Hillary would take the Democrat nomination quite easily, but that may have been because her opponents were not headline names over here in the UK. Sadly I think the Democrats might elect their Jeremy Corbyn in Bernie Sanders. If they do, brace yourself for President Trump. I expect he'll invade my country first, bombing the homeowners on the Menie estate for not selling up for his golf course... This is a truly terrifying prospect, softened only by the rich pickings for dead poolers as and when the carnage of President Trump ensues. I think he'll attack North Korea first, just because, basically. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,593 Posted January 31, 2016 I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but... DEMOCRATIC Clinton: 60% Sanders: 40% REPUBLICAN Trump: 50% Rubio: 20% Cruz: 20% Carson: 3% Kasich: 3% Christie: 2% Paul: 2% If Trump puts of the Republican leaning middle voters and Sanders puts off the left leaning middle voters isn't there the potential room for an independent free thinking (nice guy) candidate. President Gates anyone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msc 18,489 Posted January 31, 2016 I thought it was going to be a repeat of the 2002 French election with Trump as Le Pen, but Clinton seems to be doing her best to screw up the nomination. I do think Trump is basically Barry Goldwater electorally though. Maybe Bernie Sanders is taking the well worn path to power, that of being unable to better choose his opponents. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Zorders 1,271 Posted January 31, 2016 I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but... DEMOCRATIC Clinton: 60% Sanders: 40% REPUBLICAN Trump: 50% Rubio: 20% Cruz: 20% Carson: 3% Kasich: 3% Christie: 2% Paul: 2% If Trump puts of the Republican leaning middle voters and Sanders puts off the left leaning middle voters isn't there the potential room for an independent free thinking (nice guy) candidate. President Gates anyone? I take comfort in the fact that no matter who wins, the Jobs probably won't come back. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shroud 19 Posted January 31, 2016 Well, you did get one thing right - many prefer Trump over Ted Cruz. He's even more fanatical in many ways than Trump is, only doesn't talk as much about it. Was a major force behind that Government shutdown a few years ago, and has extreme positions on just about everything. Far as assassination goes, the last serious effort against any President or Presidential candidate was John Hinckley in 1981, who failed primarily because he didn't research hand guns enough, it would appear. Not that I'm saying having bBsh Sr in office would have been a huge improvement, but perhaps some. Many in the States feel BOTH "mainstream" parties have sold-out the man on the street; that's one big reason Trump and Sanders both are doing well so far. If it winds up with several major candidates running, somebody might slip in without having to top 50%; would depend on the states won, of course,(due to each state having differing electoral votes) and honestly, I think trump could win a number of them an "indi" campaign esp. if he chose smartly in a running mate. From what many say about Michael Bloomberg, he is as big a jerk as Trump or Cruz (if not worse in some respects), but again, keeps his mouth shut most of the time. One thing's for sure; if Trump does win - and another major terror attack just might give him the election - you can expect a much more aggressive US foreign policy, I think. Not necessarily North Korea first, but imagine he'll get around to putting an end to that lunatic in awhile. I don't think anybody truly wants to see them with hydrogen bombs and a way to deliver them, as they are dumb enough to use the things w/o thinking twice about it. I'm sure the welfare of Kim's own people is a really major concern.... I have heard it said that the only reason China hasn't done something about NK is they do like a "buffer zone" between ourselves/SK, and their border directly. In other words, I'm not at all sure China would come to the North's aid this time - there's all the trade and such they do with the US at stake as well, remember. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,593 Posted January 31, 2016 Well, you did get one thing right - many prefer Trump over Ted Cruz. He's even more fanatical in many ways than Trump is, only doesn't talk as much about it. Was a major force behind that Government shutdown a few years ago, and has extreme positions on just about everything. Far as assassination goes, the last serious effort against any President or Presidential candidate was John Hinckley in 1981, who failed primarily because he didn't research hand guns enough, it would appear. Not that I'm saying having bBsh Sr in office would have been a huge improvement, but perhaps some. Many in the States feel BOTH "mainstream" parties have sold-out the man on the street; that's one big reason Trump and Sanders both are doing well so far. If it winds up with several major candidates running, somebody might slip in without having to top 50%; would depend on the states won, of course,(due to each state having differing electoral votes) and honestly, I think trump could win a number of them an "indi" campaign esp. if he chose smartly in a running mate. From what many say about Michael Bloomberg, he is as big a jerk as Trump or Cruz (if not worse in some respects), but again, keeps his mouth shut most of the time. One thing's for sure; if Trump does win - and another major terror attack just might give him the election - you can expect a much more aggressive US foreign policy, I think. Not necessarily North Korea first, but imagine he'll get around to putting an end to that lunatic in awhile. I don't think anybody truly wants to see them with hydrogen bombs and a way to deliver them, as they are dumb enough to use the things w/o thinking twice about it. I'm sure the welfare of Kim's own people is a really major concern.... I have heard it said that the only reason China hasn't done something about NK is they do like a "buffer zone" between ourselves/SK, and their border directly. In other words, I'm not at all sure China would come to the North's aid this time - there's all the trade and such they do with the US at stake as well, remember. Thank you Shroud for the in-depth analysis. Is there a genuine moderate Republican candidate who could seriously take votes off Hilary if needed to. From what we see in the UK someone like Chris Christie seemed to have the right credentials but his star has faded somewhat in the past few months. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charon 4,943 Posted January 31, 2016 Interesting take on the Hilary journos and Bernie. https://theintercept.com/2016/01/31/the-bernie-bros-narrative-a-cheap-false-campaign-tactic-masquerading-as-journalism-and-social-activism/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted January 31, 2016 I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but... DEMOCRATIC Clinton: 60% Sanders: 40% REPUBLICAN Trump: 50% Rubio: 20% Cruz: 20% Carson: 3% Kasich: 3% Christie: 2% Paul: 2% You forgot Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadGuy 1,614 Posted January 31, 2016 I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but... DEMOCRATIC Clinton: 60% Sanders: 40% REPUBLICAN Trump: 50% Rubio: 20% Cruz: 20% Carson: 3% Kasich: 3% Christie: 2% Bush: 2% You forgot Bush. Lol I literally forgot he existed... anyways I guess he has 2% then and Paul no chance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Windsor 2,233 Posted January 31, 2016 I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but... DEMOCRATIC Clinton: 60% Sanders: 40% REPUBLICAN Trump: 50% Rubio: 20% Cruz: 20% Carson: 3% Kasich: 3% Christie: 2% Bush: 2% You forgot Bush. Lol I literally forgot he existed... anyways I guess he has 2% then and Paul no chance. I think Bush might do better than expected. He does have name recognition, and he is part of a political dynasty which appeals to arch-conservatives. Even if he doesn't. If he does better that the other under 20%er, he might emerge as the sensible candidate. Then again, it seems that both parties would elect a sensible candidate only begrudgingly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
anthonyd46 6 Posted February 1, 2016 speaking of trump. Im british but it does seem to be gathering momentum for him... could he actually win? that might finish a few of the weaker ones off. The BBC did quite a good overview of the 11 candidates in the Republican race. Iowa and New Hampshire will probably see off up to 5 of these and it then when we will see whether the polls can match the votes on the ground. A lot will depend on whether Democrats who elect to vote in the Republican primary think Trump offers a more beatable opponent for Hillary than anyone else. I live in Connecticut and in my state and about 15 others you can't vote in the republican primary if you are a registered democrat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulh85 101 Posted February 1, 2016 Sorry to take this away from Nancy, but its sort of related.... isnt the first round of voting today in one of the states? how much will we learn from this about who might win overall? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadGuy 1,614 Posted February 1, 2016 Sorry to take this away from Nancy, but its sort of related.... isnt the first round of voting today in one of the states? how much will we learn from this about who might win overall? Iowa. Little. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,662 Posted February 1, 2016 It's gonna get interesting and scary at the same time. Trump would be so divisive that there are loads in the Republican part who might start scheming to get an anyone but Trump candidate elected (meaning Bush might still surge). Hilary might - just - get an easier ride. Nobody that young, stressful job, dead pooling potential, eh? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,593 Posted February 1, 2016 Sorry to take this away from Nancy, but its sort of related.... isnt the first round of voting today in one of the states? how much will we learn from this about who might win overall? Iowa. Little. The fallout will occur after New Hampshire. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
En Passant 3,743 Posted February 1, 2016 It's gonna get interesting and scary at the same time. Trump would be so divisive that there are loads in the Republican part who might start scheming to get an anyone but Trump candidate elected (meaning Bush might still surge). Hilary might - just - get an easier ride. Nobody that young, stressful job, dead pooling potential, eh? Lucky to get any kind of ride given her husbands prediliction for away fixtures. Is that my coat? I think it must be... 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,593 Posted February 1, 2016 It's gonna get interesting and scary at the same time. Trump would be so divisive that there are loads in the Republican part who might start scheming to get an anyone but Trump candidate elected (meaning Bush might still surge). Hilary might - just - get an easier ride. Nobody that young, stressful job, dead pooling potential, eh? But we are building up a bit of a backlog of ex-presidents, vice presidents and first and second ladies. We need to clear a few of them out before we start discussing Obama as a serious DL candidate. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deadsox 894 Posted February 1, 2016 I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but... DEMOCRATIC Clinton: 60% Sanders: 40% REPUBLICAN Trump: 50% Rubio: 20% Cruz: 20% Carson: 3% Kasich: 3% Christie: 2% Bush: 2% You forgot Bush. Lol I literally forgot he existed... anyways I guess he has 2% then and Paul no chance. I think Bush might do better than expected. He does have name recognition, and he is part of a political dynasty which appeals to arch-conservatives. Even if he doesn't. If he does better that the other under 20%er, he might emerge as the sensible candidate. Then again, it seems that both parties would elect a sensible candidate only begrudgingly. In New Hampshire, we're getting absolutely bombarded by mailings that are not from any specific candidate but are attacks on many Republicans. I don't know for sure but I suspect that Bush (who has a lot of money behind him) is responsible. We are also bombarded by phone calls but I don't answer those. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maryportfuncity 10,662 Posted February 1, 2016 I wrote something like this 3 weeks ago, so it might be too early for an update, but... DEMOCRATIC Clinton: 60% Sanders: 40% REPUBLICAN Trump: 50% Rubio: 20% Cruz: 20% Carson: 3% Kasich: 3% Christie: 2% Bush: 2% You forgot Bush. Lol I literally forgot he existed... anyways I guess he has 2% then and Paul no chance. I think Bush might do better than expected. He does have name recognition, and he is part of a political dynasty which appeals to arch-conservatives. Even if he doesn't. If he does better that the other under 20%er, he might emerge as the sensible candidate. Then again, it seems that both parties would elect a sensible candidate only begrudgingly. In New Hampshire, we're getting absolutely bombarded by mailings that are not from any specific candidate but are attacks on many Republicans. I don't know for sure but I suspect that Bush (who has a lot of money behind him) is responsible. We are also bombarded by phone calls but I don't answer those. So, are you actually gonna turn out and vote when the time comes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shroud 19 Posted February 1, 2016 Actually, since Jimmy Carter won Iowa back in 1976, it's been an important state to win - it was the start of the end for Hillary in 2008, remember. If Trump or Sanders do win it, it will be an earthquake in US politics. On Nancy herself, she might well pass on in 2016 - she does look frail. Jolly Green Gnat, yes, Chris Christie is the most moderate of the Republicans running, and seems a fairly-decent sort, but I doubt he gets much farther than the first few states. On people frustrated with the system here, the more likely thing is many voters simply won't vote come November, or else will vote for some 3rd-party independent candidate. Much as I hate to admit it, the Clinton's ties to Wall Street are hardly a huge secret, after all. Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka)or whatever his daughter's name is exactly) Trump are best pals also for the curious - make of that what you will, and u can maybe see why many are so angry at the US political system as it has become. Many US states have the requirement that a Democrat, saym, can only vote for the Demorcratic primary (or whatever) candidates. Independents cannot vote in some state's primaries at all unless some laws have been changed in recent years, which I don't think many have on that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
