2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV

[deep]

If Iowa was a real election Trump may have met the polling estimates and came in first


Cruz admits his people said Carson was quitting to take his supporters, blames CNN.

 

[deep]

I am still going with the idea that Hillary's vulnerabilities could help the GOP win this....therefore im hoping whatever the GOP nominates is the least despicable pile of shit of the bunch. Currently i have to say that is TRUMP! since the non-despicable bunch (Jeb! Kasich, Christie, or Paul) really don't have much of a chance.

you are looking at this correctly

Cruz is most dangerous if elected,
Rubio is W light, we don't need that shit again,
Trump is a throw of the dice, are you feeling lucky??
Jeb may be the best qualified and with the best temperament, but he has less than no shot at all,
all the rest, not worth even evaluating

Sanders nomination damn near puts any GOP nominee in, scary thought.
Hillary had a cake walk, but fucked it up. She is most beatable by Trump and next perhaps Rubio, and if she further self destructs it is possible Cruz could beat her,
If Joe Biden somehow gets the nomination, lets say Hillary has a health issue and bows out. He is not a lock. Because there is genuine Obama fatigue, and a third term is hard to win. Obama does not have Reagan's appeal and only Cruz would be about as bad of a nominee as Michael Dukakis

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Sanders does run a difficult card trying to win over the black south, I imagine.

 

[deep]

Iowa
NH
Vermont
that's it. He won't win anyplace else, never had a chance.

 

[Irvine511]

It's going to be Rubio vs Clinton. A weird reversal of 2008.

We'll see just how talented Marco really is. My guess is that he is no Barack Obama.

However.

Elections are always about the future. He is younger. Big advantage. She is also smarter and far more experienced than he is. In the end, she is going to be running for Obama's third term. She has made that decision and will be using that as the primaries go south as a way to keep black voters engaged. I just don't see them going Sanders. I could be wrong.

In the end, my guess is that HRC's appeal with the rust belt Democrats will give her a fairly easy electoral victory.

The past is a problem, though. As I listened to the news this morning, it struck me that I've known her since I was in junior high. My first introduction was the 60 Minutes piece where they talked about Gennifer Flowers. We are all weary of those two.

But. She has experience and competency and she isn't a bad candidate. She has no magic, but she has resolve and grit and you know she knows her shit.

Who knows; we'll see.

 

[Oregoropa]

Sanders does run a difficult card trying to win over the black south, I imagine.

If he had taken Iowa clean and then NH he would have gotten a better chance at getting some momentum.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Iowa
NH
Vermont
that's it. He won't win anyplace else, never had a chance.

It's all a game of momentum. If he cleanly wins New Hampshire, it's a different picture. If it's tight, like Iowa, I might agree. Much like Obama defeating Clinton, though... when you expose her belly and show she can be defeated, she will be defeated.

 

[Hewson]

Clinton, when you expose her belly .

Nobody wants to see that.

 

[digitize]

If he had taken Iowa clean and then NH he would have gotten a better chance at getting some momentum.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

If only because the media would have gone crazy with a narrative of a Clinton explosion, yes. What a difference a nearly-meaningless few percentage points can make.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Nobody wants to see that.

We need a president with abs.

 

[bono_212]

I'm just going to answer some of these as best I can, though I know others have answered some, and I may be repeating information.

- I feel like this campaign has been going for fucking ever. Why the FUCK is an election that won't take place until November starting like 18+ months out. What the fuck. (And side Q, how the fuck can people expect Obama to get shit done/be good when this fucking circus is going on.)

It starts earlier and earlier all the time. One major reason for this is the 24-hour news cycle, and its connection to getting names and faces out there.

If Obama were eligible to run again, it would absolutely impact his efficiency as president.

He's not, so this has no impact on him, and it seems like he's getting more done now than ever.
- Are the Democrats in a better place than the Republicans? (kinda hard question to answer given everyone will be biased.) Like the Republican race is 10000000x more interesting and entertaining than the Democratic race, but is that a good thing for the Dems? That it's between two of them instead of five or seven or ten like the GOP?

This doesn't really have a good answer, as it's opinion based.

- What is the difference between the last 12 months and today? Why was today so special?

This has been answered pretty sufficiently, but yeah, basically, all of the year before yesterday was conjecture. Today was the first piece of REAL impact voting.

- On that note, why is it that your system only allows two terms of government? If one president does a real fucking good job (not saying that's Obama, just being hypothetical) wouldn't it suck to replace him/her with someone less good because you have to?

Just look at our current congress to understand why term limitations are meaningful.

And, finally,

- What happens from now until election day?[/QUOTE]

Oh, cobl4, I just realised I can answer another of your questions, and a non american to boot. Two term limit - happened because of Roosevelt. He was in office for a whopping 13 years, truncated by ill health and death. His Democratic coalition controlled government for a good deal longer. I guess there was a desire to not lock in that precedent, or whatever (although what they never tell you is, it's consecutive terms. If he was silly enough, Bill Clinton could legally run for president now.)

Thank you, Teddy Roosevelt, for trying.

the term limits you're talking about is just presidential. there's term limits on other government positions too but yeah. basically fdr got elected FOUR TIMES and after he died in office, they passed legislation to enact term limits, i think it goes back to washington, our first president. he served two terms and didn't run for a third so it's very important™. but i'd rather have sanders anyway, and term limits helped ensure people like reagan and dubya got out so it's not always a bad thing.

Jefferson was more vocal than Washington about term limits, but the precedent was set by Washington.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

you are looking at this correctly

Cruz is most dangerous if elected,
Rubio is W light, we don't need that shit again,
Trump is a throw of the dice, are you feeling lucky??
Jeb may be the best qualified and with the best temperament, but he has less than no shot at all,
all the rest, not worth even evaluating

Sanders nomination damn near puts any GOP nominee in, scary thought.
Hillary had a cake walk, but fucked it up. She is most beatable by Trump and next perhaps Rubio, and if she further self destructs it is possible Cruz could beat her,
If Joe Biden somehow gets the nomination, lets say Hillary has a health issue and bows out. He is not a lock. Because there is genuine Obama fatigue, and a third term is hard to win. Obama does not have Reagan's appeal and only Cruz would be about as bad of a nominee as Michael Dukakis

Trump is not a throw of the dice. He's an unmitigated disaster. He's gotten this far and still hasn't had one single fucking idea.

Literally. Nothing.

Oh he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. How, you ask? Cause he wrote Art Of The Deal! That's how!

We're going to stop Muslims from entering the country until we can figure this out. Okay. Figure what out? And who? The fuck are you talking about?

That he has even stayed in this long without issuing a single solitary fucking idea on what he'd actually do and how he'd do it just speaks to the sheer stupidity of large portions of the electorate.

 

[Oregoropa]

He did release a fairly detail tax plan that is very favorable to earners under 25k and families under 50k. They basically pay zero federal income tax.

There is frustration even amongst his supporters over lack of detail.

But there is one example of Trump policy.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[BVS]

He did release a fairly detail tax plan that is very favorable to earners under 25k and families under 50k. They basically pay zero federal income tax.

There is frustration even amongst his supporters over lack of detail.

But there is one example of Trump policy.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

No, his plan was not detailed, it was generalities that wouldn't account for the big promises that made you vote for him. It wouldn't pay for the massive deportation, the wall(he's not getting Mexico to pay for it don't be that naive), or the tracking of Muslims. Let alone his health plan

But when you feed a crowd that doesn't care about facts, math means nothing.

So why are YOU supporting him? You're so much smarter than all this BS. Besides being anti-establishment does he appeal to you on any logical level?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[U2Larry54]

Not for nothing, but the idea that in the year 2016 we’re deciding who gets to run for the most powerful position in the western world by having people stand in groups in a gym, and/or folded slips of paper is fucking frightening.

Frightening? I think people getting in a room together and talking face to face before they vote is a very positive thing in 2016. I'd be far more frightened if this all took place on people's I-phones without them ever leaving their basement or bedroom.

 

[Salome]

Clinton doesn't strike me as the greatest candidate ever.
But, then again, to me it seemed that Obama was exactly what the US needed and his presidencies basically amounted to very little (in due time Obamacare will be considered a blessing though) because of an inability between Democrats and Republicans to work together.

I always sort of feared where the US would go after Obama. If you can even make a huge stinking mess of things when having the right person in place, then where do you go after that? (Certainly not Sanders IMO, unless you haven't paid much attention why Obama has been largely ineffective). It is a breading ground for whackjobs like Trump and Cruz.
Clinton (if through name alone) at least offers some idea of political stability.

Still seems like the least bad person for the job.
And I still think she will easily win it.

 

[Irvine511]

Clinton doesn't strike me as the greatest candidate ever.
But, then again, to me it seemed that Obama was exactly what the US needed and his presidencies basically amounted to very little (in due time Obamacare will be considered a blessing though) because of an inability between Democrats and Republicans to work together.

I always sort of feared where the US would go after Obama. If you can even make a huge stinking mess of things when having the right person in place, then where do you go after that? (Certainly not Sanders IMO, unless you haven't paid much attention why Obama has been largely ineffective). It is a breading ground for whackjobs like Trump and Cruz.
Clinton (if through name alone) at least offers some idea of political stability.

Still seems like the least bad person for the job.
And I still think she will easily win it.

It amazes me when people say Obama has been ineffective. If you listen to his opposition, he's gotten everything he's ever wanted and the GOP rolls over and plays dead. Where do you think "take our country back" comes from?

It also amazes me when people express disappointment that he didn't turn the US into Iceland. As if a continent of 320m people could ever accept anything other than incremental change. This is not a revolutionary population, moderates tend to win the presidency, and it's critical in keeping the country seen together. We are not France, now on its 5th republic.

The moderates tend to win the presidency, and for good reason.

 

[anitram]

I also have to say I'd take my chances with Trump over Cruz and Rubio. Cruz is a hateful true believer, nobody likes him, he is running his entire campaign on the premise that nobody wants to work with him - can't have that kind of person in office. This is to say nothing of his stone age ideas regarding women and carpet bombing civilians. Rubio really is W light, I think he is entitled and lazy (in terms of his political life, he does at least seem to have worked hard prior to being the annointed one) and I think would be controlled by Dick Cheney types should he make it.

Trump has an elephantine ego and is a person I would not want to spend a minute with. BUT I think he is largely a performer and somebody who would do whatever it takes to close the deal. The idiocies he is saying on the campaign, I'd venture a guess he half-believes some of them and the others, like parading around a bible in an ad, are totally made up positions by his marketing people. He has really figured out what a portion of the electorate wants to hear and is giving it to them. But does anybody actually believe that a man with 3 wives, 5 children that we know of, heaven knows how many affairs, etc is really going to be anti-choice? Do you really think somebody obsessed with $ actually cares about gay marriage or what some whackadoodle in flyover country thinks are his god given rights to sell guns in the parking lot of a daycare? I honestly see him having a pretty ineffective one term, maybe it's way worse than that and I'm wrong, but that's a 50/50 chance. With Cruz, you know exactly what you're getting and it's horrific.

The problem the Democrats have is that the Clintons have always been extreme opportunists, but at least Bill is likeable. The only hope here was that Hillary walked away after 2008 and thought about retirement, spending some time with the grandkids and what have you. But she is not that type of woman, it is as if she has lived for this moment her entire life, she feels like it is her turn and there is literally nothing she will do to give that up. My prediction is still she grinds her way to electoral victory, I think she will do very well in places like OH, PA, and very well with older women who vote in droves. But she won't take this in a landslide, unless we are "blessed" with Cruz.

 

[anitram]

It amazes me when people say Obama has been ineffective. If you listen to his opposition, he's gotten everything he's ever wanted and the GOP rolls over and plays dead. Where do you think "take our country back" comes from?

You can forgive people for being confused if they are listening to his opposition. Because to them, Obama is a fascist dictator who has gotten his way on every issue AND at the same time an effete, ineffectual pussy.

 

[Salome]

It amazes me when people say Obama has been ineffective. If you listen to his opposition, he's gotten everything he's ever wanted and the GOP rolls over and plays dead. Where do you think "take our country back" comes from?

It also amazes me when people express disappointment that he didn't turn the US into Iceland. As if a continent of 320m people could ever accept anything other than incremental change. This is not a revolutionary population, moderates tend to win the presidency, and it's critical in keeping the country seen together. We are not France, now on its 5th republic.

The moderates tend to win the presidency, and for good reason.

Granted, my opinion is based on whatever news reaches Europe.
Which has mostly been government shutdown, still no increased gun laws and Obamacare.
From here it all seems like a missed opportunity.

I don't even want The Netherlands to resemble Iceland.
Let alone I would advise the US to go down that route.

 

[Irvine511]

I understand. I've spent a good amount of time in Europe and understand how curious the US can look from the outside, and how it can be difficult to grasp the enormity of the geography and populace, as well as the complexity of domestic issues and understated but very real regional differences.

We, including the American left, often operate under the assumption that what will work in small, comparatively homogenous European countries will magically translate to the US. It won't. That's why I thought that Obamacare was, generally, an important step towards universal coverage, for example. There are myriad small legislative achievements too long to list here, and possibly disputable. The contention isn't whether or not Obama has been good but if he's been effective or, as the chattering class would say, "consequential." He has. We've had small, incremental change we can believe in. That's how the country is designed, with all its checks and balances, to resist big change. People from Kansas inhabit the same country as the DC-NYC cognoscenti, and their beliefs and values have to be taken into account, and their votes matter as well. The US is more like the EU.

I agree about guns. I think Obama would too. It's unbearably depressing.

 

[Irvine511]

ultimately, i think the argument i'm making is for a presidential candidate -- legislators are different -- to occupy the edge of the center. for the Dems, it's going to be a center-left candidate, for the GOP, it's going to be a center-right. don't forget, in 2000 W campaigned as a "compassionate conservative" uninterested in wars and nation building and touting things like working with Democrats in Texas and education policy. after 9/11 is when Darth Sidious Dick Cheney took over internally and gave a shell-shocked public a much, much more conservative administration than was intended.

further, divided government tends to be pretty good government. we could argue that the US was governed pretty well from 1981-2001 by a President and Congress from opposing parties. this isn't to say that all legislation was "good" or not, but it is to say that it was never too radical or reactionary and the business of government functioned pretty well, even after the 1994 mid-terms or the 1998 blow job scandals.

i think we need our revolutionaries, but i think they come from the legislative branch. a president needs to represent the largest number of people. to me, that's an important piece of leadership. she does not 100% represent me, but that's ok -- i prefer the good to the perfect. i want an executive to represent a broad coalition and also be willing to push a few key issues in my direction so that said coalition will follow. i would point to Obama's cautious, incremental, but ultimately transformational work on LGBT issues as a great example. yes, it took him a long time to fully endorse SSM (and at Biden's prompting). but he did important work by even saying the word "gay" in his 2004 speech at the Convention. he appointed good judges, he worked hard to repeal DADT which was a great example of work with Leiberman. and now look where we are. enormous, exciting progress that may have seemed grinding at the time but the change itself is real and lasting.

in summary, i'm still voting for Hillary.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Frightening? I think people getting in a room together and talking face to face before they vote is a very positive thing in 2016. I'd be far more frightened if this all took place on people's I-phones without them ever leaving their basement or bedroom.

The democrats vote by standing in a large space, grouping together, and counting heads.

The Republicans put folded pieces of paper in a bucket, which are then out into smaller Buckets by some random dude who, at least the one I was watching, drops every 4th vote on the floor.

It's 2016. I'm not saying we should all be voting on our smart phones but perhaps Iowa can update their process to something that was developed in the last hundred years.

 

[Oregoropa]

I used to like Ted Cruz, but he's downright slimey and is a big dork unleashed on a power trip right now.

It's fun to watch him and Donald spar like it's High School all over again.

Ted Cruz just said 'We're likely to wake up one morning and find out Donald Trump nuked Denmark'


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Axver]

Trump wants Iowa to vote again or Cruz's result nullified because, he alleges, of voter fraud.

That's one very healthy crop of sour grapes.

 

[bobsaget77]

Trump is a sociopathic, narcissistic, dangerous, perverted moron. I wouldn't be surprised if he loses New Hampshire, too.
He's using this whole Cruz/Carson thing to make the claim that he was being treated unfairly. Then he'll go third party. The whole fiasco was 100% on the Carson campaign anyway. Saying he's gonna go home to FL to get a change of clothes? Wtf? Are you serious?
If Trump, by some miracle, wins the Republican nomination, I'll vote write in for Ron Paul. I don't care that he's not even running, I just won't vote for Trump in any circumstance. Seriously, Trump vs. Hillary would be the worst election in the history of America.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[PhilsFan]

Or you could vote for the Democratic candidate.

 

[Oregoropa]

Trump is a sociopathic, narcissistic, dangerous, perverted moron. I wouldn't be surprised if he loses New Hampshire, too.
He's using this whole Cruz/Carson thing to make the claim that he was being treated unfairly. Then he'll go third party. The whole fiasco was 100% on the Carson campaign anyway. Saying he's gonna go home to FL to get a change of clothes? Wtf? Are you serious?
If Trump, by some miracle, wins the Republican nomination, I'll vote write in for Ron Paul. I don't care that he's not even running, I just won't vote for Trump in any circumstance. Seriously, Trump vs. Hillary would be the worst election in the history of America.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

He won't waste money on an Independent run. He's barely spent any money so far.

 

[Irvine511]

Or you could vote for the Democratic candidate.

those baby killers?

 

[BVS]

So Trump was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by anonymous.

Thanks Obama


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference