2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
InfiniteBoredom said:
I don't like Sanders line of her speaking fee with Goldman Sachs tbh. Sure, no doubt that was to curry favours to some degrees but insinuating that she's bought and paid for because of that is disingenuous. The fact is, corporations do shell out big fees for celebrities in events like that and they pay it as much for star power as anything. If you have to pick a target, why not George Soros, who backed Obama heavily in 08 and now have given $8m for Hillary's Super PAC?

There's nothing wrong with contrasting his and her positions, as well as their status (grassroots vs establishment), but character attack like that are driving a wedge between Dems. The hostility I see now, albeit online, is quite worrying.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's a fairly salient point and not much of an attack when you compare the line Hillary used to imply that Sanders is misogynist ("When women talk, some people think we're shouting"), and David Brock, who is part of her campaign, stating that black lives don't seem to matter to Sanders, just because he decided to have an Iowa ad reflect the state's demographic.

But yeah, shit is getting entrenched out there.
 
Rubio Surging - won't be enough to catch Trump, but the 'momentum' talk will continue....

imrs.php


Hillary is also trending up (somewhat surprisingly)

imrs.php


Again, like Rubio, it won't be enough...but positives for both I suppose.
 
Would be great to see Cruz finish 4th in NH behind Trump, Rubio, and Kasich. The cretin deserves it after his stunt in Iowa.
 
Neutral said:
Rubio Surging - won't be enough to catch Trump, but the 'momentum' talk will continue....
Hillary is also trending up (somewhat surprisingly)

Again, like Rubio, it won't be enough...but positives for both I suppose.
Click to expand...
Nationally though, one out today had Rubio up 10. Could very well be an outlier, but has certainly had an uptick in all polls so far. A lot depends on New Hampshire, if he gets a good result there even without winning he'll be in good shape. But I'm drawn again to the fact that since '80, every GOP nominee has been a winner in either Iowa or NH (mainly the latter).
 
Red-Jeff said:
They can if we continue to elect people in other parts of our government that stand for the people first and foremost. I would rather be idealistic, naive, and pursue these great ideas as opposed to being cynical, scared of failure, and okay with settling for less. Settling for less does not mean I am opposed to compromise when necessary which is where Bernie stands as well if you look at his political career.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Republicans control both the houses. Never mind the 'if we continue to elect people who are righteous' because they would never be in power if we continue do what we should. I'm from India and I wouldn't touch any politician in my country with a barge pole. It's always a choice between who's the worst. I'm not endorsing Hillary here, nor am I saying Sanders is pure utopia, but with all the talk politicians give before elections, you have to be pragmatic about what can be achieved. Sanders is all bluster about what he'll do and how he'll go after banks, but so far his selling point is his ideals and not what he could do.

Also, Bernie throwing out the 'you are only progressive on few days' conveniently forgets the days he voted for gun control laws. I like him, but come on, it's like Arab spring revolution in here.
 
imo Rubio and Cruz will hedge each other out as long as they are both in the race. They both sort of occupy the same young upstart role. If one were to drop out the other would beat Trump.
 
Raoul said:
imo Rubio and Cruz will hedge each other out as long as they are both in the race. They both sort of occupy the same young upstart role. If one were to drop out the other would beat Trump.
Click to expand...
Surely the establishment won't let Rubio drop out...he's their last hope.
 
fishfingers15 said:
Are you serious? Republicans control both the houses. Never mind the 'if we continue to elect people who are righteous' because they would never be in power if we continue do what we should. I'm from India and I wouldn't touch any politician in my country with a barge pole. It's always a choice between who's the worst. I'm not endorsing Hillary here, nor am I saying Sanders is pure utopia, but with all the talk politicians give before elections, you have to be pragmatic about what can be achieved. Sanders is all bluster about what he'll do and how he'll go after banks, but so far his selling point is his ideals and not what he could do.

Also, Bernie throwing out the 'you are only progressive on few days' conveniently forgets the days he voted for gun control laws. I like him, but come on, it's like Arab spring revolution in here.
Click to expand...

Yeah no thanks, I'm done electing politicians purely based on pragmatism. I'm not voting for Bernie because he is righteous, I am voting for him because he is honest and stands up for his constituents.
 
Last edited:
Red-Jeff said:
Yeah no thanks, I'm done electing politicians purely based on pragmatism. I'm not voting for Bernie because he is righteous, I am voting for him because he is honest and stands up for his constituents.
Click to expand...

Good for you. If only more people voted for people who don't have a chance of winning, one day one of them might win.
 
Raoul said:
Good for you. If only more people voted for people who don't have a chance of winning, one day one of them might win.
Click to expand...

Sanders surely has a chance of winning, though? He's the second most likely Democrat candidate, and would probably be able to fare well against some of the more extreme Republican candidate on their side.
 
Cheesy said:
Sanders surely has a chance of winning, though? He's the second most likely Democrat candidate, and would probably be able to fare well against some of the more extreme Republican candidate on their side.
Click to expand...

Except there's a reason no Republican even bother attacking him. It'd be nice to think Sanders is the Democratic Reagan, but he's not.
 
Cheesy said:
Sanders surely has a chance of winning, though? He's the second most likely Democrat candidate, and would probably be able to fare well against some of the more extreme Republican candidate on their side.
Click to expand...
A poll last year said that 50% of Americans would not vote for someone describing themselves as a socialist. Which doesn't give much room to breathe.
 
Neutral said:
Surely the establishment won't let Rubio drop out...he's their last hope.
Click to expand...

TBF Rubio is more conservative than any establishment republicans. He came through in the tea party wave.

It's just that he seems more likable.
 
Ubik said:
A poll last year said that 50% of Americans would not vote for someone describing themselves as a socialist. Which doesn't give much room to breathe.
Click to expand...

Yeah...but I expect some of those who say that also wouldn't vote for Trump either, and might actually prefer Sanders ahead of him. I mean, I saw a poll a while back that had half of Americans saying they'd be embarrassed for Trump to be their president. Not to mention that Sanders seems to have made a very good impression recently, and has turned himself into an actual contender, even if Clinton remains the massive favourite.

He's unlikely to be the candidate, but I'd say that if he is the candidate then he'd stand a very strong chance of winning when it's considered how alienating some of the Republican candidates are.
 
Cheesy said:
Yeah...but I expect some of those who say that also wouldn't vote for Trump either, and might actually prefer Sanders ahead of him. I mean, I saw a poll a while back that had half of Americans saying they'd be embarrassed for Trump to be their president. Not to mention that Sanders seems to have made a very good impression recently, and has turned himself into an actual contender, even if Clinton remains the massive favourite.

He's unlikely to be the candidate, but I'd say that if he is the candidate then he'd stand a very strong chance of winning when it's considered how alienating some of the Republican candidates are.
Click to expand...
I look at it from the other perspective, going from a Trump or Cruz win being near impossible to being potentially a coin-flip (and as we know, Bernie loses coin flips). It's easy for us on the left to think it's only rightwing stuff that's toxic to voters, but in the US especially and their history with the USSR and Russia (and unlike European democracies, they've never had an established major socialist party), lefty stuff can be just as off-putting. Even today Obama's (very restrained) healthcare reform is in negative popularity.
 
Ubik said:
I look at it from the other perspective, going from a Trump or Cruz win being near impossible to being potentially a coin-flip (and as we know, Bernie loses coin flips). It's easy for us on the left to think it's only rightwing stuff that's toxic to voters, but in the US especially and their history with the USSR and Russia (and unlike European democracies, they've never had an established major socialist party), lefty stuff can be just as off-putting. Even today Obama's (very restrained) healthcare reform is in negative popularity.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but the original point was that Sanders was completely unelectable...not that his potential election would come down to a coin flip. I don't think he will win, but the argument that he's a massive risk, and very unlikely to be victorious, is different to the one which says he definitively can't/won't.
 
Cheesy said:
Perhaps, but the original point was that Sanders was completely unelectable...not that his potential election would come down to a coin flip. I don't think he will win, but the argument that he's a massive risk, and very unlikely to be victorious, is different to the one which says he definitively can't/won't.
Click to expand...
He's potentially electable against someone that's unelectable, yes.

Unless Bloomberg comes in, in which case he's unelectable again.
 
Raoul said:
The scourge of "Bernie Bros" is upon us, and its not a good thing for Bernie.....

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/4/10918710/berniebro-bernie-bro

http://qz.com/610355/bernie-sanders...undermined-by-some-of-his-loudest-supporters/

Any Bernie Bros in this thread ? :)
Click to expand...

Nope.

I keep hearing about Bernie bros, but not about the people who cry "misogyny!" whenever people have a go at Hillary. I'd wager that there are no more idiots in the Bernie camp than in Hillary's, give or take a few.
 
Eriku said:
Nope.

I keep hearing about Bernie bros, but not about the people who cry "misogyny!" whenever people have a go at Hillary. I'd wager that there are no more idiots in the Bernie camp than in Hillary's, give or take a few.
Click to expand...

Not even close. Go on social media and its full of young Bernie 20 something muppets who are just learning about politics and are delusionally idealistic .....well because they're young.
 
Raoul said:
Not even close. Go on social media and its full of young Bernie 20 something muppets who are just learning about politics and are delusionally idealistic .....well because they're young.
Click to expand...

If you say so. Thankfully I didn't attach a value to my wager, so you're free to have a nickel if you're going to insist on cashing in.

On a serious note, you're probably right that the hubris of youth might pad that number a bit. However, I see a fair bit of online activity, encouraging that people don't approach this in a way that'll turn off the other side, or worse, the people on the fence observing. It sucks that there's a contingent who'd act in a way that denigrates the public discourse.

I'll be showing my bias with this last comment, but I can see why some of the youngins get so hot and bothered. Watching the Clintonbot 2.0 and her entourage "evolve" and position herself, and simultanously tossing spurious claims at Sanders, gets me a bit riled as well. It's so obvious that if she were to have a sincere platform her main overriding agenda would be "get Hillary into office". A far cry from Bernie, who'd have made a better career and far greater sums of money if he played it like most other politicians.

edit: shit, there's a debate on? I thought the Sanders camp were insisting on nailing down some NY dates before they agreed to an NH debate?
 
Eriku said:
If you say so. Thankfully I didn't attach a value to my wager, so you're free to have a nickel if you're going to insist on cashing in.

On a serious note, you're probably right that the hubris of youth might pad that number a bit. However, I see a fair bit of online activity, encouraging that people don't approach this in a way that'll turn off the other side, or worse, the people on the fence observing. It sucks that there's a contingent who'd act in a way that denigrates the public discourse.

I'll be showing my bias with this last comment, but I can see why some of the youngins get so hot and bothered. Watching the Clintonbot 2.0 and her entourage "evolve" and position herself, and simultanously tossing spurious claims at Sanders, gets me a bit riled as well. It's so obvious that if she were to have a sincere platform her main overriding agenda would be "get Hillary into office". A far cry from Bernie, who'd have made a better career and far greater sums of money if he played it like most other politicians.

edit: shit, there's a debate on? I thought the Sanders camp were insisting on nailing down some NY dates before they agreed to an NH debate?
Click to expand...

Yep, in a few minutes i think.
 
Raoul said:
Bernie Bros (@Ravi on the fight during his visit from Canada).

2016-01-29-1454108687-9719350-Sanders-thumb.jpeg
Click to expand...

You sure you want to judge books by their cover? I mean, I'd assume from their looks that you could fairly tag them as "Bernie Bros", but I know I've mentally pegged people as meatheads and been utterly wrong before.

Raoul said:
Yep, in a few minutes i think.
Click to expand...

If I didn't have an American wife who's fed up with US politics, I'd be sticking it on. Guess I'll save it for later.
 
Same thing happened with Corbyn over here. His supporters on forums and such were perfectly normal, but many of the Twitter and some of the more activism inclined ones were invariably colostomy bags. Hell of a lot of sexist abuse to female candidates, hell of a lot of "you aren't really progressive" shite chatted. The appeal of the outsider who'll do things differently is strong, and the effect it has on some is to make them think the revolution has already arrived.
 
Ubik said:
He's potentially electable against someone that's unelectable, yes.

Unless Bloomberg comes in, in which case he's unelectable again.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what will happen if Sanders wins the nomination. A lifelong Democratic before he ran as a Republican to become Mayor of New York. Add in his strong gun control stance and he will take votes of Sanders.

Of course if Rubio or Cruz wins the nomination, there is a good chance Trump will run as a indepedant as well.

Might see nobody win 270 Electoral votes and have the Republican controlled House choose the next President.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.