Who Do You Think Will Win The Democrat And Republican Nominations?

[deadsox 894]

 

Considering how awful Trump and Clinton's approval ratings are now and they haven't even begun attacking each other I wonder if this leaves the door open for Libertarian Gary Johnson to cash in his Money In The Bank briefcase.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not the only one wondering. Failing that America is likely to discover tactical voting with loads of people who don't like either candidate simply going for the less obnoxious (in their eyes) to stop the one they really hate.

 

 

This is absolutely true Mary, but what do you do when you "really hate" both of them? Vote Green party? Vote Libertarian? Vote Socialist? I honestly don't know what to do but I'll be looking at fringe candidates for sure.

[En Passant 3,758]

 

I haven't really been following this story. Is Donald Trump going to be President then? He's a bit of a cock, isn't he?

 

Odds are that Hillary will win the general election not Trump. I agree with your comment on Trump but decorum forbids me from labeling Clinton.

 

It doesn't prevent me , whist Trump is a cock (according to the above), Hilary hasn't had any because her husband was too busy sticking it up interns.

[deadsox 894]

 

 

I haven't really been following this story. Is Donald Trump going to be President then? He's a bit of a cock, isn't he?

 

Odds are that Hillary will win the general election not Trump. I agree with your comment on Trump but decorum forbids me from labeling Clinton.

 

It doesn't prevent me , whist Trump is a cock (according to the above), Hilary hasn't had any because her husband was too busy sticking it up interns.

 

 

Not where I was going En, but OK.

[maryportfuncity 10,694]

 

 

Considering how awful Trump and Clinton's approval ratings are now and they haven't even begun attacking each other I wonder if this leaves the door open for Libertarian Gary Johnson to cash in his Money In The Bank briefcase.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not the only one wondering. Failing that America is likely to discover tactical voting with loads of people who don't like either candidate simply going for the less obnoxious (in their eyes) to stop the one they really hate.

 

 

This is absolutely true Mary, but what do you do when you "really hate" both of them? Vote Green party? Vote Libertarian? Vote Socialist? I honestly don't know what to do but I'll be looking at fringe candidates for sure.

 

 

 

In the past Americans have voted in the less hateful.

 

But, this election will be a real test. There is possibly the curve ball of a late entry electable independent - like Gary Johnson

[RoverAndOut 4,756]

Ok, I've stayed out of the game for a few weeks, largely because I had little to add that hadn't already been said and all I could have said is that if Trump wins Indiana he'll get to 1237, which the last 48 hours has proven. As for the Democrats, Bernie will not beat Hillary whatever he may claim. He could win every remaining state 55-45 (a larger margin than he won by on Tuesday) and he still won't overtake her delegate count. His hope then is to convince superdelegates to support him not her to put him over the top, but why would they? Hillary is the lifelong Democrat (and yes wags, I know she was a Republican briefly at college), many of them feel they 'owe' her for shafting her in favour of Obama in 2008 and there is also a school of thought that the process has been kind on Bernie thus far, he won't stand up to the barrage that will come at him once he's the nominee. So in short, it's definitely Trump v Clinton.

 

So what happens next? With time to spare before the Republican convention (meaning the anti-Trumps already know he's the nominee), they have time to consider their next move. The ideologically conservative wing of the Republican party are broadly divided into four camps: the reluctant supporters (such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), the 'I'm With Hers' who'll support Hillary over Trump, those hoping for a third party challenge from a conservative (and I don't mean someone like Gary Johnson, it would have to be a heavyweight, or at least a solid Republican) and then there are those who simply won't vote on election day. All three of the latter options will help Hillary, the question is how many people that will eventually apply to. The first poll since he became the presumptive nominee has him starting out with a 13-point deficit (54-41) to Clinton, although it is far too early to give an accurate rating. I'm telling you now no third party candidate will win this election. A third party conservative, an 'establishment Republican' if you will, is not going to tempt many independents and liberals to their cause, they'll only take Republican votes away from Trump. You could liken it to 1992 (incidentally when Hillary's husband won of course), when the roles were reversed: Republican establishment President George H.W. Bush was harmed by the ultra competitive businessman Ross Perot being in the race, allowing Clinton to win the presidency with only 43% of the popular vote. This time, the businessman is the Republican candidate and there may be an establishment challenge as a third party. The problem is finding someone to run. Anyone who has a future in the Republican party cannot run against it this time, limiting the desirable options. The best option is someone who's finished in politics, but John Boehner (the former Speaker of the House) quite likes Trump and hates Cruz. It may come down to whether the Never Trumps can convince Romney to run, but he won't be a very exciting proposition.

 

Looking ahead: VP choices are coming round the bend, and everyone is particularly interested to see who Trump picks, as it's essentially his first 'governing decision'. Trump himself says he wants a politician, someone to grease the skids with Congress and ensure his plans get through, which is not a bad idea. His problem is finding someone prepared to run on a Trump-someone ticket. Kasich has all the experience you could ask for, but really doesn't seem keen on Trump, so it's hard to see him picking him. There is a school of thought which says picking a Washington insider damages Trump's outsider brand, and therefore he should pick another outsider to run alongside him. Names I heard last night were some General whose name I can't remember, or Robert Gates, the Republican and former Obama Defence Secretary, both of whom would give Trump some foreign policy experience to maybe sure up some of the fears people have there. But who knows? He might pick his son Eric as VP for all we know. Hillary seems to be leaning towards Tim Kaine, the Virginia Senator and former Virginia Governor as her running mate. A bold choice would be Elizabeth Warren, but pundits think Hillary is more interested in governing than campaigning and wants a VP that will suit her well in office (she was impressed with Obama's choice of Joe Biden as VP and their relationship in office), and she and Warren may clash on various issues, as well as the frankly ludicrous idea that apparently two women think they can run America... (just imagine!)

 

And then, before you know it, we're in September and the election campaign is well under way. Lots of discussion of the political map. In 2012, Obama beat Romney 332-206 in the Electoral College, with 270 needed to be president. This means Clinton starts with a built-in advantage that Trump would have to overturn. Trump thinks he's competitive in New York (29 electoral votes) but it's pie in the sky to think he can win there. His big hope is the so-called 'Rust Belt' of former industrial states who've been hurt by trade deals and the sorts of things Trump is talking about. Many are unsure he can really win many of these places, but if he was to win Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18) and Michigan (16), that's a net gain of 54 (108 when you consider the loss to Clinton), which would leave it delicately poised at 278-260, meaning one more sizeable swing state to Trump (say, Florida) and he'd be President. If it gets really interesting, if Trump wins Ohio and Michigan but not Pennsylvania, and also then wins Florida, we'd be tied at 269-269 and it all gets really crazy. But there are other things to consider. John McCain (Senator from Arizona who's up for re-election this year) is quite concerned that his state, with it's sizeable Latino population may be competitive this year for the Democrats. That would be 11 votes the Republicans would be losing. Similarly, Georgia has a huge African-American population. If the ultra conservatives down there don't bother voting, or vote for a third option, and the Dems can convince huge numbers of African-Americans to turn out, then Georgia could go Democratic for the first time since Clinton in 1992 (that three-man race) and Carter in 1980 (who was the state's governor). That would be another 16 votes to Hillary over Trump. Arizona plus Georgia would be 27 votes which negates the gain of Florida...and so on and so on. The map could be extremely unpredictable this year, or it could end up pretty much the same as it did in 2012. A CNN poll last night showed that Hillary is doing better than Obama with all the key demographics of the so-called 'Obama coalition' (the group of voters who won Obama two elections), even up a couple of points with African-Americans, so she has a built-in firewall right now. The election is going to be ugly and bitter, but Hillary knows how to fight in the dirt. We may just be left wondering how many people will stand in the voting booth and think 'I can't pull that lever for a man who I have no idea what he will do' and how many will think 'How bad can it be? I'm with Donald'. That could well decide this election.

[maryportfuncity 10,694]

The next time someone crashes a thread and says we're a bunch of ignorant sick fucks we should remember where to find the post above

[deadsox 894]

It's a good analysis of a sad situation.

[Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,226]

It was, quite frankly, a fucking brilliant post.

[RadGuy 1,619]

Great analysis Roverandout!

 

About the Vice Presidents, it seems like Julian Castro (former San Antonio mayor) is also commonly mentioned when discussing Clinton's possible picks. A popularly discussed Trump pick is also Iowa senator Joni Ernst. She's just as crazy as him. Indian-American governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley and Mexican-American governor of New Mexico Susana Martinez were also mentioned, since they might improve his reputation among women and minorities. Neither are interested, though.

 

When it comes to electoral map, the most positive-for-Democrats option has Clinton winning even states like Mississippi, Wyoming, and Montana. Well, Mississippi makes sense. It's 37% African-American (highest in the nation), so if that group has large turnout the state might actually go blue, especially since Romney only won it by 53%-ish in 2012. Montana and Wyoming are very libertarian, though, and would never vote for an "establishment shrill". So I doubt it. Utah is more likely since they seem to hate Trump. If Sanders was the candidate, he might win it, but Clinton might not due to the state being white and she lost it by a lot in the primaries. So Utah will probably have the lowest turnout in the nation.

 

The most negative-for-Democrats map shows Clinton doing exactly the same as Obama in 2012 (which was a landslide by electoral college standards), except she loses Maine. This makes now sense to me, as Trump lost by a lot there in the primaries. New Hampshire might make more sense to go red since it actually has done so recently (2000 or 2004, can't remember) and there is a very libertarian attitude.

 

My prediction is that the map will look like 2012, except Clinton gains North Carolina and Arizona. I could also see her losing Colorado. But the blue Rust Belt states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, are staying blue. They have pretty large African-American populations and a couple of big cities.

 

Either way, Trump will lose.

[RIP Wee Jum 1,559]

[RadGuy 1,619]

Hillary won the Guam Caucus today, 60% to 40%.

 

This gives her a whopping 4 delegates, Bernie gets 3.

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

Hillary won the Guam Caucus today, 60% to 40%.

 

This gives her a whopping 4 delegates, Bernie gets 3.

If Trump wins they won't be able to attend conventions in future.

[RadGuy 1,619]

Sanders wins West Virginia 51% to Clinton's 38%, slightly outperforming the polls.

 

But wait? 51 + 38 = 89! Who got the leftover 11% of the vote? I'll explain.

 

Remember Oklahoma where Sanders won 51% to Clinton's 41% with a leftover 8%?

 

Well, Oklahoma and West Virginia are alike in many ways. At the edge of the South, low for the South black populations, but filled with ignorant, blue-collar, white trash people.

 

They're also alike in that they are mainly registered Democrats but vote consistently for Republicans (they were, along with Utah, the only 3 states to not have a single county go to Obama in the 2012 election).

 

Basically, since these areas are isolated from the rest of the South, they didn't get the memo that "dem Democratz just wusses now, it's the Republicans that are the troo Murican negro-haters now!!!"

 

So most of them don't bother to change their registration from Democratic. Yet they vote Republican because they aren't completely ignorant and know that "dern, that Romney be a troo Churstian! Ma vote he gets!"

 

So basically, that 10%-ish in both states are the conservative Democrats voting for perennial, unknown, conservative candidates. Heck, in the 2012 primaries, where Obama obviously won in a landslide as the incumbent president and didn't have any significant challengers, Oklahoma and West Virginia had many counties go to unknown conservative candidates.

 

And even much of the 90%-ish are conservatives. According to exit polls, 50% of those who voted for Sanders are voting for Trump no matter what in the general election.

 

So basically, the Oklahoma and West Virginia Democratic primaries don't matter, cause it's just conservatives voting anyway.

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

Trump starts to backslide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36272236And kudos for a good first intervention by the new Mullah, sorry Mayor, of London.

[charon 4,943]

Excellent stuff rover.

 

 

Watched a wee bit of TV this morning , and Russia Today was going on about Clinton and her Trust dodging tax / offshore accounts etc.

 

That may harm the boot if it gets airtime stateside.

[CarolAnn 926]

Sanders wins West Virginia 51% to Clinton's 38%, slightly outperforming the polls.

But wait? 51 + 38 = 89! Who got the leftover 11% of the vote? I'll explain.

Remember Oklahoma where Sanders won 51% to Clinton's 41% with a leftover 8%?

Well, Oklahoma and West Virginia are alike in many ways. At the edge of the South, low for the South black populations, but filled with ignorant, blue-collar, white trash people.

They're also alike in that they are mainly registered Democrats but vote consistently for Republicans (they were, along with Utah, the only 3 states to not have a single county go to Obama in the 2012 election).

Basically, since these areas are isolated from the rest of the South, they didn't get the memo that "dem Democratz just wusses now, it's the Republicans that are the troo Murican negro-haters now!!!"

So most of them don't bother to change their registration from Democratic. Yet they vote Republican because they aren't completely ignorant and know that "dern, that Romney be a troo Churstian! Ma vote he gets!"

So basically, that 10%-ish in both states are the conservative Democrats voting for perennial, unknown, conservative candidates. Heck, in the 2012 primaries, where Obama obviously won in a landslide as the incumbent president and didn't have any significant challengers, Oklahoma and West Virginia had many counties go to unknown conservative candidates.

And even much of the 90%-ish are conservatives. According to exit polls, 50% of those who voted for Sanders are voting for Trump no matter what in the general election.

So basically, the Oklahoma and West Virginia Democratic primaries don't matter, cause it's just conservatives voting anyway.

As of August 2014,Oklahoma had 884,150 registered Democrats, 881,253 registered Republicans, and 257,045 registered Independents. Oklahoma also has the option of registering "No Party," but the state doesn't report that.

 

West Virginia's numbers are more recent - actually 2016 - and show 577,977 registered Democrats, 374,931 registered Republicans, 1,646 registered to the Mountain Party, 3,241 Libertarians, 254,265 to No Party and 30,525 chose Other.

 

The main thing to keep in mind, though, is that a Southern Democrat is not a Progressive. Southern Democrats tend to cleave much closer to the middle, if not actually stepping over the line a bit. They are not going to champion transgender rights or limiting the Second Amendment. They are also going to be far more interested in corporate issues than they will be in social issues.

 

"Democrat" and "Republican" do not mean the same thing in Texas as they do in California.

[RadGuy 1,619]

Julian Castro just announced that him as Hillary's VP is not going to happen.

 

He was one of the top contenders, along with Sherrod Brown, Tom Perez, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

[Phantom 2,552]

Trump starts to backslide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36272236And kudos for a good first intervention by the new Mullah, sorry Mayor, of London.

 

He's only backsliding as he wants the support of the GOP. The same with the wall, which he's dismissing stating that they were ideas or suggestions.

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

 

Trump starts to backslide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36272236And kudos for a good first intervention by the new Mullah, sorry Mayor, of London.

 

He's only backsliding as he wants the support of the GOP. The same with the wall, which he's dismissing stating that they were ideas or suggestions.

 

And votes from people who don't like Hilary.

[Rotten Ali 600]

Julian Castro just announced that him as Hillary's VP is not going to happen.

He was one of the top contenders, along with Sherrod Brown, Tom Perez, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

To me the obvious choice to be Hillary's VP would be Al Gore. He has done the job before, and he is thus fully qualified to step up to the Presidential role should she die in office.

 

And heaven knows how many old Clinton/Gore posters can be reused!

[Sir Creep 7,072]

Julian Castro just announced that him as Hillary's VP is not going to happen.

He was one of the top contenders, along with Sherrod Brown, Tom Perez, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

Warren isn't going to tag along with this slug. She's got an actual head on her shoulders and someone I would like to see in 4 years. She stayed outta the fray due to the anointing of Hillary which was obvious. She's Presidential material not VP remora.

 

The whole point of VP is to lock down some votes the primary candidate may miss. Hillary could use some reassurance in that MD/VA/NC region and I think either of the senators from Virginia would be a perfect fit. Tim Kaine's name is out there, though if it were me I'd lean toward Warner, so I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for Tim Kaine as her most logical pick of the names that are out there.

SirC

[rockhopper penguin 2,265]

 

Julian Castro just announced that him as Hillary's VP is not going to happen.

He was one of the top contenders, along with Sherrod Brown, Tom Perez, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

Warren isn't going to tag along with this slug. She's got an actual head on her shoulders and someone I would like to see in 4 years. She stayed outta the fray due to the anointing of Hillary which was obvious. She's Presidential material not VP remora.

 

The whole point of VP is to lock down some votes the primary candidate may miss. Hillary could use some reassurance in that MD/VA/NC region and I think either of the senators from Virginia would be a perfect fit. Tim Kaine's name is out there, though if it were me I'd lean toward Warner, so I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for Tim Kaine as her most logical pick of the names that are out there.

SirC

 

But doesn't Warren bring in Bernie's people enabling Hilary to tackle the middle ground? She'd also pretty much tie up the women's vote which after all is half of the voters.

[Sir Creep 7,072]

 

 

Julian Castro just announced that him as Hillary's VP is not going to happen.

He was one of the top contenders, along with Sherrod Brown, Tom Perez, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

 

Warren isn't going to tag along with this slug. She's got an actual head on her shoulders and someone I would like to see in 4 years. She stayed outta the fray due to the anointing of Hillary which was obvious. She's Presidential material not VP remora.

The whole point of VP is to lock down some votes the primary candidate may miss. Hillary could use some reassurance in that MD/VA/NC region and I think either of the senators from Virginia would be a perfect fit. Tim Kaine's name is out there, though if it were me I'd lean toward Warner, so I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for Tim Kaine as her most logical pick of the names that are out there.

SirC

But doesn't Warren bring in Bernie's people enabling Hilary to tackle the middle ground? She'd also pretty much tie up the women's vote which after all is half of the voters.

Tie up the women's vote? Any woman voting for a conservative is nothing more than -- as so beautifully put in Soylent Green -- 'furniture'. I should hope she's not concerned about losing too many female voters.

SC

[RoverAndOut 4,756]

 

 

 

Julian Castro just announced that him as Hillary's VP is not going to happen.

He was one of the top contenders, along with Sherrod Brown, Tom Perez, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

Warren isn't going to tag along with this slug. She's got an actual head on her shoulders and someone I would like to see in 4 years. She stayed outta the fray due to the anointing of Hillary which was obvious. She's Presidential material not VP remora.

The whole point of VP is to lock down some votes the primary candidate may miss. Hillary could use some reassurance in that MD/VA/NC region and I think either of the senators from Virginia would be a perfect fit. Tim Kaine's name is out there, though if it were me I'd lean toward Warner, so I'm going to throw my hat in the ring for Tim Kaine as her most logical pick of the names that are out there.

SirC

But doesn't Warren bring in Bernie's people enabling Hilary to tackle the middle ground? She'd also pretty much tie up the women's vote which after all is half of the voters.

Tie up the women's vote? Any woman voting for a conservative is nothing more than -- as so beautifully put in Soylent Green -- 'furniture'. I should hope she's not concerned about losing too many female voters.

SC

 

 

I still think Kaine is most likely for Clinton but Warren is proving very effective at going after Trump and having her right in the middle of the campaign would be a good idea, even if not as VP. Alternative might be Treasury Secretary but I'd imagine her views are too different from Hillary's to make that possible.

 

As for women voting for the conservative, plenty of women do vote conservative. Security is a massive women's issue: women worried for their young kids, worried about their sons and daughters in the military being sent into foreign conflicts, fears only being further stoked by Trump. That said, Hillary won't be focusing too much on the women's vote; the first female president and a career of arguing for women's rights will see her lock up most of the female vote. Her problem is more with securing enough men's votes, particularly white men, which is probably the argument against her picking Warren. She needs a man on the ticket, America isn't ready for two women yet. I think they're barely ready for one frankly, which is sad. One thing for sure, it won't be Bernie.

[RoverAndOut 4,756]

Kentucky Democratic Primary:

 

Clinton: 46.8%

Sanders: 46.3%

 

Oregon Democratic Primary:

 

Sanders: 53%

Clinton: 47%

 

Trump won the Oregon Republican Primary with about 60% of the vote, for what it's worth. He's still not yet reached 1237 but it will happen on June 7th for certain.

 

As you were. Nothing's changed. Bernie will pull back a handful of delegates but Hillary still has 3 million more votes and 300-odd more delegates. Tonight, including superdelegates, she will move within 100 delegates of the nomination. In other words, she will unofficially secure the nomination on June 7th, even if she loses every state that day, which she won't. It was at that precise moment in 2008 that she conceded the race to Senator Obama, but chances are Sanders won't do that.

 

I've listened to Sanders speech tonight, and was frankly astonished. Change the blue placards for red ones and the white hair for a bad wig and it could easily have been a Trump rally. Sure the message was slightly different, but it was so angry. The crowd were closer to a mob than an audience, the booing at any mention of the probable nominee, and lifelong Democrat, not to mention the vitriol being thrown at the party itself (this is a man running for the Democratic nomination for President who as far as I can see HATES the Democratic party) is making it increasingly difficult to see how the Democrats can unite. Bernie shows no sign of wanting to start reconciling the party, moreover he seems keen to stoke the fire as much as possible. How does he think this is going to end? Does he intend to intimidate the superdelegates into changing to him? Because that's not going to happen. Hillary will be the nominee. Bernie struck me as a principled man, always has. But the further into this campaign we've got the more unpleasant the tone has got. Hillary has given him a lot of leeway, a lot of rope. She knows what it's like to be up against the wall, to be competitive but to never bridge the gap, and she's let him run his campaign. His response has been to keep hammering her (which is fine), but furthermore, to claim the votes are stitched up, that it's not fair (even though the rules were the rules when he entered the race) and that the Democratic party is rigged for the Establishment. He also hammers Donald Trump, but quite how hammering the only party that can defeat Trump makes sense I'll never know.

 

Final thought: Sanders still plugging the line of how the average contribution to the campaign is $27. Has been doing since January. Now I'm no maths expert but unless people are specifically giving him $27 now because of this claim, my guess is it's no longer true, it's either gone up or down. But hey, everyone knows it's $27 so why get wrapped up in the semantics eh?