2016 US Presidential Election Pt. IV - Page 27 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-25-2016, 10:26 PM   #391
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Trump winning with 40% of the vote is much better than trump winning with 60%-75% of the vote. A blowout and the whole Democratic ticket goes down the tubes. Bloomberg saves the Democratic Party from a blowout

You honestly think these numbers are possible, or just playing the role of devil's advocate?

The "establishment" hates him and the far right talking heads are turning on him. It's as if real honest discussion about him is impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:30 PM   #392
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Trump easily beats Sanders, that's the only reason Bloomberg is mobilizing.
Well main reason, he'd go on a Cruz - Sanders race too.



I now believe Hillary is in more trouble than just the wishful thinking of the right. I still think she gets the nomination. But she will be weakened.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:34 PM   #393
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
The point I am trying to make is that is one looks at the behaviors and practices of some of these groups of people without the label of religion they would be condemned, but with the label of religion they have a shield.

Ah, I see what you're doing here. Brilliant. The double edged sword of 'freedom of religion'.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:38 PM   #394
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Trump easily beats Sanders, that's the only reason Bloomberg is mobilizing.
Well main reason, he'd go on a Cruz - Sanders race too.

But why Bloomberg? If anyone is truly concerned about a Sanders ticket wouldn't the Dems be mobilizing someone else?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:42 PM   #395
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 01:12 AM
And you base this on what, exactly? We've had multiple polling companies recently poll Sanders and Clinton against various people running for the Republican nomination...Sanders has basically no problem wiping the floor with all of them, particularly Trump, and he performs much better against all of them than Hillary.

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Latest Polls

Nobody is going to care about the Socialist label. Hell, the stuff Sanders is arguing for is the same stuff Obama gave lip service to eight years ago...only difference this time is that people know Sanders actually will stick to his guns and will go after what he wants in a truly progressive fashion for the goals that he's already stated. Rather than fix the health care system, it's Medicare for All. Rather than fix college tuition issues, it's universal free tuition at public schools, etc.

I also don't get why people and (some) of the media act like it's a big deal that Sanders won't be able to get his policies into practice because of a Republican blockade on Congress. Of course he won't when it comes to any actual legislation that he needs. But how will Hillary accomplish that? Barack Obama has been nothing but stonewalled since after the ACA and had to put up with a ton of petty tactics before that bill was passed...if Hillary actually passes any legislation beyond the budgetary compromises that are currently keeping the government afloat, it will have meant she has capitulated to the right in some fashion. Because, again, there's no way in hell you can pass liberal or even most common sense legislation with the GOP tyrants that currently control the House.

It really is an annoying nit-pick of Sanders because Clinton won't get anything she currently campaigns strongly for through the Republican House either. Republicans will control the House through 2020 at least. Districts will be redrawn for 2022's midterms after the 2020 census, but 2022 will be a lower turnout election than a Presidential year. After 2022's results, Clinton would be a lame-duck for her last two years. Eight years of full Republican control of the house. Sanders faces the exact same scenario and there's no amount of mobilizing that can change that with the way the districts are currently drawn and the abysmal turnout rates during the midterms currently. But at least Sanders will pass executive branch legislation that will go a lot farther than Clinton's and not waffle between saying one thing and doing another. Clinton is going to get attacked as a Socialist by the Republicans no matter what, so why not actually take a far leftist stance if you're going to get attacked for it anyway and not pass any legislation? Of course, that's been the single biggest failure of the Obama administration, watering down legislation throughout his first five years to appease Republicans and then to see them walk away from the table vowing not to vote for the bill no matter what...at least Clinton's administration won't be dumb enough to get the rug pulled out after everything they've seen. But, she's a Clinton. And after Bill's continuing of the war on drugs, his misguided welfare reform and NAFTA, I have no doubt that she'll sell out the American people in order to just say she got something "major" passed...case in point, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement that she wrote and now says she doesn't support...it's NAFTA all over again.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:42 PM   #396
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Polish-American Stronghold PA
Posts: 4,144
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Bloomberg probably wouldn't have much pull on Liberal-Moderate GOP outside of the BOS-WASH corridor. He's relatively unknown outside the major media-DC axis. He ran as a Republican after Giuliani as easier pathway the office, instead of getting bogged down in the gears of the NYC Democratic machine.

What they do know of Bloomberg would qualify him as left of center, and not an attractive candidate to Republicans. In fact he is the model of what we righties call the "Nanny-State"

- Carbon Control Proponent
- Gun Control Proponent
- Salt Control Proponent
- Soda Control Proponent

I will give him some credit for Stop and Frisk
__________________
Oregoropa is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:43 PM   #397
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But why Bloomberg? If anyone is truly concerned about a Sanders ticket wouldn't the Dems be mobilizing someone else?
They aren't because of demographics and the current polling that shows Sanders performing far better and essentially winning in a landslide over some of these loons. The key lies in independents which is where Sanders outperforms Clinton by a severe margin. They trust him and not her.

There's also no doubt in my mind that Sanders would drive up turnout on the left moreso than Clinton. There's basically no young women out there even all that excited about electing the first female President and they already support Sanders by a very lopsided margin. It's really a marginal group of older white women and establishment voters that are really gung-ho about that...Sanders will actually excite people and get them to turnout.

Either way though, it doesn't matter. Both will stomp the GOP nominee and neither will be able to take back the House.

For the record, I saw on FiveThirtyEight the other day that Sanders is actually the only candidate with a positive score from the American people. It's a whopping +3 favorability rating, but it towers above the rest of the field. The guy is considered extremely genuine, regardless of whether or not you're into his politics. That sort of likability would work like gangbusters in the general election and it's why he's doing so incredible in these matchups (+23 over Trump, +23 over Cruz, +18 over Rubio in CNN's recent polling).
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:44 PM   #398
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:12 PM
The guy is a ga-billionaire.
the Dems have enough problems raising money for their whole slate and running national elections. Of course Bloomberg believes he would have a shot at winning and worse case he saves the Country from a GOP takeover with Trump or Cruz in charge. If Sanders pulls an Obama and somehow gets the delegates, they can't take it from him.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:47 PM   #399
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Bloomberg's candidacy is helped a lot by Trump being the nominee. Trump would be winning the support of as low as like three million primary voters in order to win the nomination...that's a paltry amount compared to the sixty million or whatever that voted for Romney. If Trump is the nominee, you could have most of the GOP base defect to someone like Bloomberg and hold their nose...throw in a bunch of independents and Bloomberg becomes president.

Not inconceivable at all when you throw one billion Bloomberg bucks into the mix and have two very polarizing candidates in Clinton and Trump.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:53 PM   #400
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
They aren't because of demographics and the current polling that shows Sanders performing far better and essentially winning in a landslide over some of these loons.

the early polling on the GOP primaries had Trump a non-factor too. Losing to Bush, Rubio, and all the rest. I have learned not to count him out. Hillary is now (on Town Hall )blasting him and praising Muslims. In any vote in America Trump vs Muslims he wins, unless it is a Democratic circus event.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:57 PM   #401
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 01:12 AM
What do you mean early polling about the primaries? Trump rocketed to the top right away and stayed there...but he has consistently polled worse against Clinton and Sanders than all the other guys.

Bloomberg also doesn't have to just spend his own money. I imagine most of Wall Street and the like would get behind him rather than to spend money on a confirmed loser like Trump who also doesn't want a Super PAC to begin with. It's an even easier decision to dump the cash on Bloomberg with Hillary continuing to veer to the left and make anti-Wall Street pledges part of her platform.

I always thought Bloomberg would have a fair shot at President with the right timing. I think now is the right time. I don't think he can get anywhere if Sanders and/or Cruz are the nominees though. Cruz will eventually shore up too much support with the base and that would be way too detrimental to Bloomberg while Sanders is just too well liked by independents (and what better for Sanders than to face off against an actual New York billionaire like Trump or Bloomberg in the general election?)
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 10:59 PM   #402
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 01:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Hillary is now (on Town Hall )blasting him and praising Muslims. In any vote in America Trump vs Muslims he wins, unless it is a Democratic circus event.
So, you're saying that because Trump will hate on Muslims he will win the Presidency handily? Come on...

I do think the likelihood of a GOP candidate becoming President under regular circumstances is basically impossible in our lifetimes given the makeup of the country and it doesn't help that they've been consistently shedding Latino and Asian voters throughout this century as those groups continue to have a larger share of the electorate...BUT, I think Trump really is the best hail mary pass for them despite all his obvious faults. Celebrity candidacy that draws out a lot of apathetic voters could be enough to barely get him across the finish line in some key swing states like Ohio or Colorado if he were to get lucky.

Meanwhile, he'll get creamed in any sensible states, but what does that matter? Obama's approval rating throughout most of his Presidency has been excellent in three of the four quadrants of our nation. But it was horrid in the South and that alone has led him to hover around 50% for most of his Presidency. But what does the South matter when those states were never going to decide the election for him in the first place? All that matters at the end of the day are a handful of states as everybody comes to the table with over 200 in electoral vote playing chips at their disposal. John Kerry really should have just dumped all of his time and money into Ohio and hoped for the best...basically every other state he won was a given.
__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 11:01 PM   #403
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto View Post
What do you mean early polling about the primaries? Trump rocketed to the top right away and stayed there...but he has consistently polled worse against Clinton and Sanders than all the other guys.

Bloomberg also doesn't have to just spend his own money. I imagine most of Wall Street and the like would get behind him rather than to spend money on a confirmed loser like Trump who also doesn't want a Super PAC to begin with. It's an even easier decision to dump the cash on Bloomberg with Hillary continuing to veer to the left and make anti-Wall Street pledges part of her platform.

I always thought Bloomberg would have a fair shot at President with the right timing. I think now is the right time. I don't think he can get anywhere if Sanders and/or Cruz are the nominees though. Cruz will eventually shore up too much support with the base and that would be way too detrimental to Bloomberg while Sanders is just too well liked by independents (and what better for Sanders than to face off against an actual New York billionaire like Trump or Bloomberg in the general election?)

you have an interesting take on these things
to say Hillary is too left and socialist Bernie Sanders is more acceptable is, an interesting take on these things, I have no dog in this fight, I only try and call these things as I see them from years of observations
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 11:09 PM   #404
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:12 PM
Hillary was just asked to name her favorite president,
they kept empathizing she could only choose one.

Who did she pick???


wrong, she picked

 
a Republican
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-25-2016, 11:09 PM   #405
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BigMacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,245
Local Time: 01:12 AM
It also should be noted that Sanders is away ahead of Obama at this point in 2008 both nationally and in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's something the media has often noted and I don't think his candidacy is really going to be as in trouble in a far less white state like South Carolina as they think...in fact, he managed to cut Hillary's lead there in half in just a single month from December to January. He has another month until South Carolina and the potential of an Iowa-New Hamphshire-and maybe-Nevada steamroll to help prop him up. Plus, he can afford to lose in Southern states if he continues to beat Clinton in liberal ones by a much bigger margin than Obama did (hell, Sanders leads Clinton in NH by about twenty points and it's a state that Obama lost).

Big problem for Sanders in Iowa? I read today that he is at a big disadvantage in getting delegates there as his support is heavily concentrated in university areas. In other words, he will trounce Clinton by insane margins in those districts, but then will continually lose the delegates handed out in the more rural ones. That's really going to hurt and it leads me to believe that Sanders will get more votes in Iowa but it will come out that Clinton has more delegates. After all, if it's neck and neck in the state, it's going to be very bad for Sanders if he's winning these college districts with 80% or more of the vote as it means he will absolutely get creamed in the rest of the state.
__________________

__________________
BigMacPhisto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com