Trump still going at Cruz this morning....
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Last night pretty much showed Trump's liberal leanings, which sort of makes me believe he will go full liberal if he actually becomes President.
He trashed Dubya
Criticized the Iraq War
Defended Planned Parenthood
Pretty much things liberals commonly do.
He trashed Dubya
Criticized the Iraq War
Defended Planned Parenthood
Pretty much things liberals commonly do.
Funny when he called slimy Ctuz a liar right to his face on national TV. I wonder why more journos don't ask him why people think he's such a slimy, lying, shameless cnut.
I have no idea why Trump decided to run. He does not have any clear policies. Does not articulate his thoughts well. Thin skinned and he reacts more than anything. He obviously dislikes Bush from the start. I don't know their history. But with Cruz he naturally is reacting to the guys dishonesty.
Main thing is his views resonate.
I don't at all see him as a liberal though he clearly has not simply bought into this Trickle down...BS.
He will never surpass his 30 to 40 % base. The trouble for the GOP is that the second most popular guy is Cruz who is pure T party/evanglical.
It will be interesting to see how all this ends.
Main thing is his views resonate.
I don't at all see him as a liberal though he clearly has not simply bought into this Trickle down...BS.
He will never surpass his 30 to 40 % base. The trouble for the GOP is that the second most popular guy is Cruz who is pure T party/evanglical.
It will be interesting to see how all this ends.
Best case scenario is he gets the GOP nomination, then proceeds to completely implode in the Gen, which allows Hillary or Bernie to become Pres.
I do. One is a careerist whose husband was one of the best presidents in recent years, if not ever, while the other is a nutter whose brother has been the worst president in US since Nixon, if not longer.
Trump is more a politician of center, rather than conservative, that is for certain. Of course, he says some things to appeal to right wing nutters, but after the euphoric phase and wannabe Hitler phase finish, I can see him being an almost-okay president. Probably the least of all evils when it come to Republican candidates.
Of course, I would still love to see him getting humiliated (like McCain) in general elections from Hillary/Bernie.
Ultra best case scenario, their shenanigans delaying the appointment of Scalia's replacement leads to big Senate gains for the Dems, resulting in Hillary appointing Obama. Ted Cruz dries his incessant tears with the battered copy of the constitution he carts around. Could dine off the schadenfreude for years to come.
Can an ex-president become Justice (legally speaking)? Of course, it would have been amazing just to see Rubio/Palin/Cruz and go cry for the rest of their lives.
you know, I've heard this 'implode' thing from so many people. I just don't see it. He has a sizeable following. The problem with Bernie is, although he does have a strong message, it will not reach too far. His problem? Electibility fears/age/Socialist stigma for older voters/inability to convince some how he is going to pay for his programs. Hillary on the other hand does not bring any message other than Obama was Superman. So what is the future? No idea. She also has a huge lack of trust/likeability issue. I see no way any crossover Republican votes. No independent votes. She will not get Bernie's young voters. Heck even far left liberals like me have to really persude myself to vote for her. I would hate to vote for Trump.
I have this fear Trump may 'fluke it' and end up our President.
The DNC made a big mistake just trying to crown Hillary. they should have looked at younger progressives. that is where the party is..or at least moving towards...as the country is.
But tbf you have to blame Obama too who just cut this deal with the Clintons. He should have thought further about this country. Looked at the things he said in his own books. Sacrifice and do what is right for the good of the country.
There's no limits on who can be a Justice. Obama could nominate his dog if he wanted.
Both are terrible candidates. To have to pick between them is a very sad statement on the state of affairs on politics in this country.
I don't like Hillary much, but I think that she is far better than any of the clowns in the other side.
It is a shame that even this time, the republicans didn't have a semi-normal person in the race. I mean, normal right-wing politician exist (Angela Merkel, for example).
The Dems have a good chance to retake the Senate. But they will need enthusiasm. Large turnouts.
But I feel Obama will nominate Sri Srinivasan because he was approved universally. It will be difficult to vote against him.
What about Kasich?
I feel a Kasich/Sanders race would be the most sane race for a very long time and very helpful overall to the United States. Both present ideological differences without resorting to mud slinging.
Yes, unless the law has been changed since William Taft was appointed to SC
He will implode at some point - just like Leicester. It may not happen when we predict, but it will happen as he doesn't have the cross over appeal to simultaneously appeal to Dems and right wing Republicans.
Minorities would vote against him in record numbers. Women would vote against him in record numbers. The GOP would barely even bother campaigning for him after the stuff he's pulled. Hillary's had congressional committees set up against her in order to make her unpopular, and she's still at average ratings nationwide (PPP did one recently, she had -11, Bernie had -7, Trump had -33). And if younger Bernie voters refuse to vote for her and risk a GOP cretin having control over potentially three SCOTUS nominees, they are not progressives in any sense of the word.
they may end up winning the kin thing. We live in very interesting times.
If younger voters do not vote for her, it is not their fault but the fault of Obama and the DNC for putting up such a flawed candidate.
He's probably the best of a lot from Republicans, but far from sane. He might be the most progressive of them, but I really didn't like his 180 turn on global warming (which is my main concern), neither how war hawkish he was for the war on Iraq (although, it seems that now he thinks differently).
He is definitely the best republican candidate when it comes to gun laws and death penalty, but on the other hand, his views on abortion and LGBT belong in the previous century.
If people vote their conscience, we can have no complaints whatever the result. I will do this and I know many who will do the same.
Out of all the governors in the GOP race this cycle, Kasich is the one who was most successful in reducing the number of women's health clinics in his state.
He might be sane on some issues, but still driven by the GOP ideology.
With the exception of Trump, the rest of the GOP are all ideologues. (ie. insane)
It is their fault a bit, because they have to live with the likes of Ted Cruz as president for at least 4 years.
Is Clinton really that bad? I said that I don't like her that much, but I think that she will continue doing Obama's policies. And I quite like Obama despite that he didn't manage to turn to life most of the promised policies, but on the other hand, has there ever been a more hostile Senate/House than during his presidency.
And lets not forget, US has a far more stable economy than 8 years before, and isn't doing wars on other countries (or at least, not as much as before). If Clinton continues doing this, it might be an okay president, although far from a potential awesome one like Bernie. And point in case, if Bernie becomes president (highly unlikely), I can see him going the same way as Obama, unless Democrats control both the Senate and the House.
That means feck all though. Mao was probably a nicer guy than Hitler, but that doesn't make him any less evil.
I said that he is a bit better than others, but he's a nutter too. It is quite said, that the current Republican party is far more conservative than Ronald Reagan.
Interesting the gap has narrowed And the national lead is all but gone for Clinton.
If he wins Nevada could he get another bump in SC ?
It will be amazing if the lead becomes on single digit. And it can happen when (not if) he wins Nevada.
Read the post again.
Geez, I completely misread it. For some weird reasons, I read it completely the other way around.
He's better than the others on second amendment bullshit and death penalty, but that is it. In all other important policies, he's as bad as most of the other candidates (with Cruz being the worst).
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...omise_on_antonin_scalia_s_replacement_or.html
(I don't think any of this will happen)
Still,
The national lead is pretty meaningless since it doesn't directly apply to the relevant states in contention. The recent Nevada Poll was a bogus - a GOP sponsored fringe polling outlet intended to portray Hillary's lead as shrinking so that Bernie is perceived as tangible, thereby giving the GOP an advantage.
I think to change the political narrative in America, the Dems need to actively challenge Reagan's legacy. He was a sane politician compare to any present GOPer but his trickle down economics and the unbridled greed that ruled his era were the source of many problems the US face today, yet I haven't seen any prominent Dems running for office openly dissing him. Strip the GOP of their claim to success in the WH and they have nothing left.
How is the national poll showing head to head if he's supposedly losing states by a distance ? And if he's close then the race will surely carry on to other states ?
Also, didn't Clinton' own campaign try and lower down expectations in nevada recently twice over with false reasoning ? Be interesting this.
Besides i am not sure that the Republicans prefer Sanders over Clinton that much as a opponent.
Sam Bee is a lot better than Trevor Noah. I barely watch the daily show these days.
Look at the polling in the states where there will be primaries in the next 30 days, that should give you a decent snapshot of where things stand.
South Carolina: Hillary +19, Hillary +38
Nevada: Tied (although probably way off due to it being a TargetPoint (Republican) poll
Oklahoma: Hillary +16
Arkansas: Hillary +32
Michigan: Hillary +29
North Carolina: Hillary +26
New York: Hillary +21
Georgia: Hillary +41
That's what Bernie has to overcome in the next few weeks.
But aren't those all old polls when the national average in the quinnipac poll in december was Hillary leading 61 to 30 something ?
That same average came down after Iowa and even before new hampshire to apparently 44 - 42 now.
If that's the case surely he cannot be losing every state by a big margin still ? Or is he winning some 10 later states 100 to 0 ?
Doesn't tally up otherwise.
No, they are all from this month. None of them is more than 2 weeks old.
Aren't those polls ancient?
With Bernie doing well in Iowa and thrashing Hillary in NH, I think that polls now would look quite different (see SC poll, when the results changed from +38 in the December poll, to +19 in today's poll).
Sure, Hillary is an absolute favorite, but who knows. If Sanders win Nevada (which I think he will) and does well in Iowa (-10 or so), who knows what will happen.
- Status