Dr. Zorders 1,269 Posted February 11, 2016 Despite losing by 20 points Hillary will likely walk away from New Hampshire with the same amount of delegates as Bernie, due to some "superdelegates" bullshit. What, you didn't think the "Democrats" would let the people decide did you? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockhopper penguin 2,264 Posted February 11, 2016 Clinton because of the Democratic party machine and Bush because of the Republican party machine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,469 Posted February 11, 2016 Clinton because of the Democratic party machine and Bush because of the Republican party machine. Hilary has the Democratic party machine, Bill is the Democratic party animal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadGuy 1,605 Posted February 12, 2016 Gilmore is finally out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tempus Fugit 212 Posted February 12, 2016 Trump & Clinton. Bloomberg will run as an Independent hoping to gain the moderate Republican vote. I hope Trump wins the Presidency, America deserves him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoverAndOut 3,494 Posted February 13, 2016 Hillary and Kasich. Causing Sanders and Trump to run as independents. Bloomberg jumps in. Absolute mess. Sanders won't run as an independent if Hillary beats him. Trump could do anything but if he loses the nomination it won't be to Kasich, unless something drastic happens. The 'establishment' fight is between Rubio, Bush and Kasich. Still remains to be seen if Rubio can recover from his hammering by Christie at the last debate, Bush is recovering and has money to spend, Kasich is short on money and banked everything on New Hampshire (barely focused at all on Iowa), hence one of the reasons he did so well. I did see on CNN suggestions being made that the 'establishment' may have no option but to fall in behind Trump, who has started to sound more conciliatory to the party leaders in recent weeks, because they cannot, under circumstances, allow a President Cruz. So long as the field stays crowded (still 5 reasonable candidates) then it favours Trump, who can win primaries with only 35%, with other votes split. Bloomberg seems only to be interested if it's Sanders and Trump at the tops of the main party tickets, if it's moderates then there's no real gap for him. Despite losing by 20 points Hillary will likely walk away from New Hampshire with the same amount of delegates as Bernie, due to some "superdelegates" bullshit. What, you didn't think the "Democrats" would let the people decide did you? Bernie's won 15 delegates to Hillary's 9 (aka 5:3 or 60:40 just like the result said). Superdelegates don't technically count towards the primary delegate count, the point that's being made is that of the superdelegates linked to New Hampshire (state party chairman, committee members, Governor, Senator, Congresswoman), all but 2 are declared Clinton supporters so will vote for her at the convention, which is why it will end up even (of the other 2, one is required to only vote for the eventual nominee and the other is currently undecided). We'll also note that eight years ago, it was the support of vast numbers of superdelegates that swung it Obama's way over Clinton, so what goes around... In the end, if Bernie ends up winning numerous primaries and pulling ahead, superdelegates will fall into line behind him. Most primaries are winner-takes-all, not proportional, so primary winners start accumulating delegates quickly. Basically, superdelegates alone won't swing anything Hillary's way so no need for the conspiracy theories. Gilmore is finally out. What a shame, he was on an upward curve! From 12 votes in Iowa (0.00%), he got 133 in New Hampshire (0.05%). On this trend, in 1000 primaries time he'll get 50% of the vote. Also worth noting that he finished with less votes than Rand Paul (1900), Mike Huckabee (215) and Rick Santorum (155) who had all quit the race before we got to New Hampshire in the first place... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Zorders 1,269 Posted February 13, 2016 Despite the bravado from "Democrats" about how Trump is a dream opponent, I am going to say that by September/October, Shrillary will be either refusing to debate Trump out of fear (but dressing it up as "he's below me" etc)........ Or, depending on "whether" (i.e. how many times) ISIS can repeat Paris/San Bernadino as we go through this year, she might even be forced to try to somewhat mimic Trump's hardline on Islam and make her own promises. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scraggy Taters 289 Posted February 13, 2016 Gilmore is finally out. Blimey, I didn't realise he was gay ! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RadGuy 1,605 Posted February 13, 2016 Despite the bravado from "Democrats" about how Trump is a dream opponent, I am going to say that by September/October, Shrillary will be either refusing to debate Trump out of fear (but dressing it up as "he's below me" etc)........ Yep, she probably will. After all, Trump is a very tough guy who has always showed up to debates and has never refused to take part in them for dumb reasons. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungWillz 19,106 Posted February 14, 2016 Ok was out this evening, so I'm a little tipsy. Bumped into a US Chicago based Democrat who was basically telling me Obama was establishment, despite his appearance to the world at large. Told him I thought perhaps the US was more amenable to "small steps" progress/change, particularly on Obamacare, which he declaimed as having a negative effect on the very supporters of such a system, as it came outwith the reach of a lot of Democratic supporters. This came a surprise to me, and probably explains why there is more polarisation than ever in the US than those outside would care to imagine. It's not for us to speculate magnificently on how policies of Presidents impact on the American people, as we tend to see those policies as to how they would affect/impact on us. He was telling me how Trump had contributed to Hillary's campaigns in the past (I have no idea how correct this is) and that by being a success now was a way of ensuring Hillary would become President in the face of an US public who would never vote for a woman to hold that title. I'd be interested in hearing anyone from that side of the pond on these points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoverAndOut 3,494 Posted February 14, 2016 He was telling me how Trump had contributed to Hillary's campaigns in the past (I have no idea how correct this is) and that by being a success now was a way of ensuring Hillary would become President in the face of an US public who would never vote for a woman to hold that title. It's been well reported that Trump has contributed to Hillary in the past. She attended his last wedding but says it was because he's big in New York and she was a New York Senator at the time, but supposedly her daughter Chelsea is good friends with Trump's daughter Ivanka (the one he wants to bang). Some have suggested that Trump is a Democratic sleeper agent, such is his perceived benefit to the Dems if he wins the nomination, but I'm pretty sure most of those theories are made in jest... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoverAndOut 3,494 Posted February 14, 2016 Massive news that will have a big impact on the Presidential race. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has just died. Ultra conservative and a chance for the Democrats to make the court more liberal (currently 5-4 conservative). Republicans in Congress are keen to drag this out for a year in the hopes of a Republican winning the presidency, maintaining the balance (probably with another ultra conservative too given the likely nominees) but Obama has already announced his intention to nominate a candidate and seek to get him confirmed before the election. This will be a massive talking point and, if Obama can't get his nominee confirmed, means the next President will be guaranteed a Supreme Court justice, and given there's another 3 over 70 (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 82), it will bring into focus the possibility that the next President could appoint up to 3 or 4. CNN all over this if you want an American viewpoint. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 599 Posted February 14, 2016 Really, I'm uneasy about having a candidate for the top job who is currently 74 years of age. We all know people live on till their 90's and such but to have the depth of physical and mental reserves necessary to hold down such an onerous Presidential position is one where I now believe that an upper age cap be imposed such that the candidate be available to finish at least their first term below the age of 65. To put this back in context the position of Vice President be unaffected by this age cap. Thus, Bernie would be a great team asset but not exposed to all the riggers of the upmost job in world politics. Again amazed that at this stage in the process we have not seen Joe Biden, John Kerry or Al Gore, having the guts to throw their hats into the ring. The establishment view looks like Hillary or bust. Heads down let's not rock the boat. Are "they" expecting that the game will still yet open that that they may have to rally by the time the convention starts and they no longer have qualified investment going forward because of health and recusal (email security) issues. Hillary is loosing it in the popular vote everywhere now. Back in December she was 28 points up in Nevada. Now the latest poling puts them both on 45%. New Hampshire was 60%, 38%. Let's call Iowa a draw.. Judge Scalia has just died aged 79. Are we in for a President of the USA who may very well die in his first term? Thus his choice of Vice President is crucial. Has there been questions asked yet of him on this very issue. Let's face raw facts now. The primary race is on and he is now centre stage with real momentum. This single issue is very important simply by the very nature of Bernie's current age. It is said that this election will consume more than a few billion dollars. Riding on the shoulders on a single guy with such trust of 400 million citizens being unsure about the ability to stay the course of 4 years in office of extreme pressure every day. It's even sent Barry grey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msc 17,763 Posted February 14, 2016 Sanders has hinted his VP will be Elizabeth Warren, who is a youngster in this race at a mere 66. With Trump (70) and Clinton (69) as the other front runners, and Cruz/Rubio unlikely to be the nominee, this will likely be an issue for whoever wins the Presidency in 2016. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Switch 139 Posted February 14, 2016 Michael Bloomberg, who is considering a run, is also no youngster at 74. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 599 Posted February 15, 2016 Sanders has hinted his VP will be Elizabeth Warren, who is a youngster in this race at a mere 66. With Trump (70) and Clinton (69) as the other front runners, and Cruz/Rubio unlikely to be the nominee, this will likely be an issue for whoever wins the Presidency in 2016. Read the wiki article about her and it rings true to me that she would be a great asset as VP to have behind President Bernie. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,469 Posted February 15, 2016 Sanders has hinted his VP will be Elizabeth Warren, who is a youngster in this race at a mere 66. With Trump (70) and Clinton (69) as the other front runners, and Cruz/Rubio unlikely to be the nominee, this will likely be an issue for whoever wins the Presidency in 2016. Read the wiki article about her and it rings true to me that she would be a great asset as VP to have behind President Bernie. Not sure if I heard it correctly, but Warren is also one tipped to be nominated as Obama's choice for the Supreme Court. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoverAndOut 3,494 Posted February 16, 2016 The age thing is an odd one really. Ronald Reagan was the oldest first term president when he was elected in 1980 aged 69 (a few months older than Hillary will be for those keeping count) and he did two full terms. So obviously Trump and Bernie would be older than that when they take office. Bush Snr was 64 and then we've had three relative spring chickens in Clinton, Dubya and Obama. The same issue was talked about in 2008 when McCain was the nominee. He was 72 when the 08 election happened, older than everybody but Bernie and, while the job of Senator and President are different when it comes to stress and decision making, etc, it is worth noting that he's still here, still a Senator, at the age of 79 (80 later this year) so why should age be a major factor? Looking around the web, there are a few articles out there about this issue and it seems it's usually only an issue for voters when it comes up, and usually is a far bigger issue for the 'other' party in an election year. In 1996, Clinton faced Bob Dole who was nearly 73 (and, again, is still with us now by the way...) and nearly half of Democrats thought he was too old to be President. Far fewer Republicans thought so. The same thing happened in 2008 with McCain. In this election, I can't see either party making it a big issue as, unless the Republicans end up with Cruz or Rubio, both parties will have nominees comparative with Reagan in age. We're living longer and we're staying fitter and healthier for longer. I'd expect Hillary and Trump to serve two full terms, Bernie will probably see where he's at in 4 years but I don't expect him to die in office. That said, I can't deny that it is a greater risk with an older President. Bernie's been asked about it in the debates and has basically said he's in good physical health right now and he'll take it as it comes in 4 years. Hillary had a spell in hospital a couple of years ago with a blood clot but otherwise has never had any great troubles and did have a thorough medical to see if she was OK before she announced her candidacy. No idea on Trump's health but I think he's as likely to self-combust as he is to die of anything else in office... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RoverAndOut 3,494 Posted February 16, 2016 Sanders has hinted his VP will be Elizabeth Warren, who is a youngster in this race at a mere 66. With Trump (70) and Clinton (69) as the other front runners, and Cruz/Rubio unlikely to be the nominee, this will likely be an issue for whoever wins the Presidency in 2016. Read the wiki article about her and it rings true to me that she would be a great asset as VP to have behind President Bernie. Not sure if I heard it correctly, but Warren is also one tipped to be nominated as Obama's choice for the Supreme Court. I can imagine Sanders wanting her as VP for all sorts of reasons but I don't know how interested she is in the job. There was a huge 'Draft Warren' campaign last year, for those who basically wanted 'Hillary Clinton but with Bernie's policies' and she point blank refused to get involved in the race and said she didn't want to be President. Obviously VP has a different role, but there's still the danger that if President Sanders does croak, she will end up in the job whether she wants it or not. No doubting her skills though. I'd think President Sanders or President Clinton would be giving her a role in their cabinet somewhere along the line, although potentially in different areas depending on which one wins. Regarding the Supreme Court, I'm not sure if she's being touted for the role, I've seen she's posted a lot of common sense on Facebook about the shameless tactics the Republicans in the Senate are using to deny Obama's nominee a vote, but if Obama's looking to force them into a vote, she's not the nominee to pick. From the rumours I've been hearing, I believe Sri Srinivasan is the most likely candidate, not least because the Senate have confirmed him once during this Presidential term already (allowing Obama and the Dems to question what's so wrong with him this time that wasn't wrong with him last time...?) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charon 4,938 Posted February 16, 2016 The Rubio 'how great America is' advert, featuring Vancouver 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magere Hein 1,397 Posted February 16, 2016 The Rubio 'how great America is' advert, featuring Vancouver 's America, no? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,469 Posted February 17, 2016 When running for the position as leader of your country, make sure you buy the domain for your name. http://www.jebbush.com 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phantom 2,469 Posted February 17, 2016 More ridiculousness from Jeb https://twitter.com/jebbush/status/699706718419345408 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Switch 139 Posted February 17, 2016 When running for the position as leader of your country, make sure you buy the domain for your name. http://www.jebbush.com Whoever owns the domain bought it in 1997 and has paid for it until November 2024, covering Jeb off for at least two more elections. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
