2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part V

[Axver]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

And the winners tonight defy that convention. Bernie is fueled by small donations. Trump is doing enough to earn free air time. Rallies, not spending cash on ads, consultants.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Whatever the source, they're still rolling in cash - and fixated on it or on sourcing donations - compared to here. It's weird looking at how often American pollies ask for money. You won't hear that much here, what with public campaign funding, donation limits, etc.

[nielsgov]

Originally Posted by Axver

Whatever the source, they're still rolling in cash - and fixated on it or on sourcing donations - compared to here. It's weird looking at how often American pollies ask for money. You won't hear that much here, what with public campaign funding, donation limits, etc.

It really is bonkers. I've never heard it here either. I think each party gets a fixed amount of money based on the number of seats they have in parliament or something to that extent at least.

Isn't all the money floating around the reason why organisations like the NRA are so powerful?

[LemonMelon]

It's a big part of it, yeah.

One of the reasons Bernie Sanders has endeared himself to some is that he's a staunch supporter of publicly funded elections that theoretically eliminate private donations/bribes. But honestly, that's only half the battle. The fact that individuals are spending multiple billions on their campaigns is wasteful. We need to implement a strict cap on campaign expenditure. Even counting inflation, campaigns were never anywhere near as expensive as they are now.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Except Bloomburg would hurt the D's like the unconscionable, unforgivable Nader in 2000. Too much risk.

President Trump or Cruz would make W look like Lincoln. And W was by far the worst president of the modern era.

The GOP would go into meltdown.

I just have a hard time believing that the country would vote for Trump, Cruz, or for that matter, Sanders.

I think if he gets involved and is allowed to run heads up against a socialist and a fucking clown car, Bloomberg is all of a sudden going to look pretty damn good to a lot of people. And he'll do very well I battle ground states like Florida,

Of this cycle has taught is anything so far, it's that America is ready for an outside, non establishment candidate. So why not be ready to vote for a third party candidate?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

I think Bloomberg hurts the Dems more than GOP. He probably wouldn't carry a state. He's not a known figure outside the NY-DC power corridor. His pro gun control, climate stance, nanny state controls will not endear him to any republicans barring spurned Rockefellerian Bush Donors bent on payback.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

There are a TON of fiscal conservatives who don't share the same antiquated racist bullshit that the GOP panders.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Sanders is raising $1,000 a second at the moment looking at the donations coming in to his campaign. That would be $3.6 million in an hour and $86.4 million if that held for an entire day.

If everybody quadrupled the amount they've already given to his campaign (by giving $108 more dollars on average compared to the $27 they've received from the average donor), the Sanders campaign would raise four times more than what they have in the entirety of their campaign...and asking people to pony up $100 isn't that big of an ask, really.

He already out raised Clinton by $5 million in January and is now outspending her heavily on advertisements in Nevada. Clinton's campaign has a higher burn rate and spent almost half its money in Iowa alone, so she could be looking at some empty bank accounts real soon...just like in 2008.




And just in the time it took me to write that comment, Sanders is now getting about $2,000 a second.

I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers(you're off by a million compared to everything I've read), and you're extremely disconnected when it comes to projecting future funds. But I'm curious as to why this win has you so excited? Wasn't this win pretty much a given? This really isn't the test some are making it out to be.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[digitize]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Clinton gets old people that are barely informed.

Clinton gets rich people that call themselves Democrats but don't want to pay higher taxes.

Clinton supposedly also has black people in her camp thanks to being associated with the Obama administration, but we'll see what happens when South Carolina rolls around.

What about people who think that:

- A $15/hour minimum wage is actually kind of drastic, and likely to damage the employment prospects of the young and the poor

- A tax on "speculative Wall Street transactions" is an absurd way to finance things that will bring in not much net revenue while hurting marking liquidity

- "Auditing the Fed" or whatever the hell Bernie is peddling is scary

- In the long term, free trade raises standards of living for all parties

- "Breaking up the banks" would create little realistic risk-reduction (especially in a post-Volker world) at a reasonably large economic cost

- But the welfare state shouldn't be gutted, same-sex marriage should remain legal, Roe v. Wade should be protected, a ten percent flat tax or whatever is a moronic idea, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

He means Rafael Eduardo "Ted" Cruz


I think a big takeaway from tonight is that Trump outperformed his polling. He is a movement candidate, a vessel to overthrow the DC party apparatus. Bernie mirrors this on the Democratic side. The American public is out muscling the political class. All of this made possible through the Internet and social media. A true inflection point in American political history if Trump and Sanders continue their rise.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

He is a candidate without a single idea who's backed up on the shoulders of idiots and racists.

But you are right in that the American public is tired of politics as usual. Which is why we're ready for a legitimate third party candidate.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by digitize

What about people who think that:

- A $15/hour minimum wage is actually kind of drastic, and likely to damage the employment prospects of the young and the poor

- A tax on "speculative Wall Street transactions" is an absurd way to finance things that will bring in not much net revenue while hurting marking liquidity

- "Auditing the Fed" or whatever the hell Bernie is peddling is scary

- In the long term, free trade raises standards of living for all parties

- "Breaking up the banks" would create little realistic risk-reduction (especially in a post-Volker world) at a reasonably large economic cost

- But the welfare state shouldn't be gutted, same-sex marriage should remain legal, Roe v. Wade should be protected, a ten percent flat tax or whatever is a moronic idea, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

If it's Sanders vs Trump or Cruz, Bloomberg can take the Hillary vote and a large contingent of the supporters of the three governors.

He can also take Republicans who may not agree with all of his social stances but damn sure don't want a socialist or a tea party candidate in office.

If Hillary wins (which I still think she does), Bloomberg has no chance and stays out and/or enters but drops out when he sees that he can't win.

[digitize]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

If it's Sanders vs Trump or Cruz, Bloomberg can take the Hillary vote and a large contingent of the supporters of the three governors.

He can also take Republicans who may not agree with all of his social stances but damn sure don't want a socialist or a tea party candidate in office.

If Hillary wins (which I still think she does), Bloomberg has no chance and stays out and/or enters but drops out when he sees that he can't win.

I would greatly prefer Uncle Bloomberg to Sanders, but I'd also prefer Sanders to Cruz/Trump. So I'm torn about Bloomberg entering if those are our other options.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[anitram]

Originally Posted by digitize

- In the long term, free trade raises standards of living for all parties

Wait, isn't Hillary now against the TPP?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by digitize

What about people who think that:

- A $15/hour minimum wage is actually kind of drastic, and likely to damage the employment prospects of the young and the poor

- A tax on "speculative Wall Street transactions" is an absurd way to finance things that will bring in not much net revenue while hurting marking liquidity

- "Auditing the Fed" or whatever the hell Bernie is peddling is scary

- In the long term, free trade raises standards of living for all parties

- "Breaking up the banks" would create little realistic risk-reduction (especially in a post-Volker world) at a reasonably large economic cost

- But the welfare state shouldn't be gutted, same-sex marriage should remain legal, Roe v. Wade should be protected, a ten percent flat tax or whatever is a moronic idea, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

we may be witnessing the rise of the left wing Tea Party. purity uber alles.

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

You mean a president with the last name Cruz, not Ted Cruz as President of the United States. Right?

I'm saying I like Ted Cruz and would vote for him.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

we may be witnessing the rise of the left wing Tea Party. purity uber alles.

I find it somewhat thoughtless and very inaccurate to compare Sanders and his supporters to the Tea Party.

[Mrs. Garrison]

Originally Posted by BVS

You should do some research on the Pauls. Ron published white supremacy bs in his biographies and then made up a lie about how he never knew that was in his book until years later when he ran for presidency.

He was also bought out by big tobacco to create the first "tea party", there's still a group of libertarians that believe smoking has no link to cancer.

Do your research.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Ron wasn't running this time around. Hillary supported the Iraq War but that's not going to stop you from voting for her.

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

I would be very happy with a President Cruz. I hope Bloomberg runs.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

I'm saying I like Ted Cruz and would vote for him.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

You have obviously lost your mind

[anitram]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I find it somewhat thoughtless and very inaccurate to compare Sanders and his supporters to the Tea Party.

It's fairly ridiculous.

My husband, who is typically a conservative voter, though he has on occasion voted for the Greens, is a very strong fiscal conservative who doesn't care at all about social issues. He is on the liberal side of social issues but doesn't attach great importance to them when he votes, he's much more concerned about debt, deficits and the economy. He is an economist who works for an international bank. And he will flat out tell you that in his opinion (keep in mind this is a man who does not vote for left or centre-left parties as a general rule), everything Bernie Sanders says about the financial world and income inequality is 100% correct, the issue really is whether his plans/ideas for fixing it could make things even worse. And it's not a secret either among financial elites that they pretty much recognize the same.

So the idea that he is some lunatic or his followers are comparable to Tea Partiers who share e-mails of the Obamas looking like monkeys and who want to keep Muslims out and build walls to keep Mexican racists out and are paranoid about Sharia Law is frankly very laughable.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison

Ron wasn't running this time around. Hillary supported the Iraq War but that's not going to stop you from voting for her.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

I was commenting on someone's obsession with a politician.

I've admitted my vote is not an enthusiastic one this time around.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Oregoropa

I think Bloomberg hurts the Dems more than GOP. He probably wouldn't carry a state. He's not a known figure outside the NY-DC power corridor. His pro gun control, climate stance, nanny state controls will not endear him to any republicans barring spurned Rockefellerian Bush Donors bent on payback.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

NO NANNY STATE! Well unless you're Muslim, then we want you tracked and monitored at all times.

And dammit we're going to keep our lips firmly planted on the ass of the NRA and bury our heads in the sand when it comes to science. This is how we make America great again.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by anitram

It's fairly ridiculous.

My husband, who is typically a conservative voter, though he has on occasion voted for the Greens, is a very strong fiscal conservative who doesn't care at all about social issues. He is on the liberal side of social issues but doesn't attach great importance to them when he votes, he's much more concerned about debt, deficits and the economy. He is an economist who works for an international bank. And he will flat out tell you that in his opinion (keep in mind this is a man who does not vote for left or centre-left parties as a general rule), everything Bernie Sanders says about the financial world and income inequality is 100% correct, the issue really is whether his plans/ideas for fixing it could make things even worse. And it's not a secret either among financial elites that they pretty much recognize the same.

So the idea that he is some lunatic or his followers are comparable to Tea Partiers who share e-mails of the Obamas looking like monkeys and who want to keep Muslims out and build walls to keep Mexican racists out and are paranoid about Sharia Law is frankly very laughable.

It'd be great if we could be debating the merits of Sanders' proposed solutions instead of whether or not there is even a problem, but here we are. I still find it hard to support Hillary simply because she's more electable.

And apparently Hillary's new strategy is to attack Sanders on his support for Israel, so her desperation is starting to show. I guess Mark Penn thinks this is a good idea for moving the conversation away from the economy since it's a losing battle for Hillary?

[trojanchick99]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

Clinton gets old people that are barely informed.

Clinton gets rich people that call themselves Democrats but don't want to pay higher taxes.

Clinton supposedly also has black people in her camp thanks to being associated with the Obama administration, but we'll see what happens when South Carolina rolls around.

That's it.

And this is why Bernie Sanders supporters annoy the hell out of me. Hell, I think they annoy him as well.

To be honest, I can't get excited about this election at all, as opposed to 2008. Can we just have a 3rd Obama term, please?

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

I just have a hard time believing that the country would vote for Trump, Cruz, or for that matter, Sanders.

I think if he gets involved and is allowed to run heads up against a socialist and a fucking clown car, Bloomberg is all of a sudden going to look pretty damn good to a lot of people. And he'll do very well I battle ground states like Florida,

Of this cycle has taught is anything so far, it's that America is ready for an outside, non establishment candidate. So why not be ready to vote for a third party candidate?

The problem is with our fucked up Electoral College, they just have to have strategic states vote for them. Just get a few key swing states like Ohio, Virginia and Florida and boom, the US goes to hell.