Like I've said before, I'm not a US citizen, so don't get a say in it. But I'd be very worried about the global economy if Sanders gets elected.
More of the same is exactly what's needed.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
More of the same is exactly what's needed.
Have you ever seen The West Wing?
He's almost like the Republican nominee that Bartlet ran against for his second term who was referred to as the 'fortune-cookie candidacy' because all he came out with was was they called 'the 10 word answer', i.e. these stupid little retorts like the above or 'the wall just got 10ft taller' etc.
He has no substance at all, just stupid simplistic sound bites that appeal to simple minded people who are evidently lapping it up given the response he gets.
Yeah, that's a great comparison. Well spotted.
He was on Fox and Friends about 10 minutes ago and he came very close to losing it. He raised his voice and got quite aggressive with his answers and yet again was awful about Megyn Kelly when she wasn't even mentioned. I so hope he loses it soon, mind you I (and others) have been saying that for a long time now.
So, am I the only one here who is starting to really want Trump to do this?
I still dont think he will, but dammit Im starting to like the guy
I still dont think he will, but dammit Im starting to like the guy
I think Cal means we don't need candidates whose domestic policies are going to destabilize global markets, which are pretty tightly interwoven with one another. A sharp change in policy by the world's biggest economy could set off a series of knock on effects in Europe, China, Emerging Markets etc. In that sense, more of the same is a safer bet.
First Clinton's ad for NY.
Gonna rub a lot of Berners the wrong way.
Gonna rub a lot of Berners the wrong way.
Specifically regarding to economic policy, how would pushing for more transparency on Wall Street destabilize global markets?
I think Sanders (and Trump) would take a closer look at the recent Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Because more transparency in the financial industry means more regulation, and like it or not, the rest of the world would have to adopt the changes made in the US.
I think the general sentiment about higher taxes, speculation taxes, increase in minimum wage etc are generally viewed as regressive for business and markets, which when you add them to the US already having the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, will only result in more corporate inversions, more jobs outsourced to cheaper labor markets etc.
Her campaign is on shaky ground at the moment. Sanders has made big gains in the national numbers, in addition to having won the past 5 states.
Admirable attempt to keep it interesting Raoul.
I still think she will win, but its not the near certainty it was two weeks ago. She clearly fails to inspire enthusiasm, where Sanders does it easily. If he continues to cut into her numbers, she may not reach the ~2300 figure with non-Super delegates, which would damage her tremendously. She is pivoting away to Trump while being far away from winning the nomination, which is a big mistake imo.
Additional regulation does introduce inefficiencies, but the intention is that those inefficiencies are outweighed by the benefits to investors and companies listed, not necessarily buy side banks. Either way, destabilize sounds a tad bit extreme.
That's news
Obama didn't win a majority in pledged delegates alone in 2008, relying on supers to get him over the top, and even lost the popular vote to Clinton (though this is muddied by Obama being very strong in caucus states). It's a non-issue.
It's still a near-certainty, requiring something fundamentally changing in the race that would allow Sanders to win by 15-20 in the likes of New York, California and Pennsylvania.
Yeah I'm not from the States either. Interesting that you think more of the same is needed, the global economy isn't exactly in good shape.
Its certainly not a near certainty. She has the advantage for now with time running out, but the narrative has changed somewhat in weeks and she has a history of being perceived as weak, uninspiring, and disingenuous, which is a toxic mix that can result in things changing virtually overnight.
According to the new Gallup poll, 55% of Hillary's supporters describe themselves as 'very excited' for her candidacy, compared to 45% of Sanders's. In the PPP poll, 80% of her supporters are set to vote for her come November, compare to Sanders's 61%.
We all think of the bolded as a truism, but data at this point, coupled with Sanders's inability to win large primaries tell a different story. At the very least, if it's true that she's a weak candidate failing to generate enthusiasm, it's still not correct that Sanders 'does it easily'. Rather, the optics of large rallies and social media presence give that impression.
Last edited:
It's a near-certainty because the delegate calculations make it so. The possibility of things changing virtually overnight accounts for it only being "near". Zero reason to think it would happen more than halfway through primary season, rather than at any time before.
But the US economy is one of the few bright spots, for the most part.
Things have definitely changed in recent weeks - as in Sanders has for the first time polled above Clinton in a national poll (despite starting 60 points behind her). His poll of polls numbers are rising and he has the momentum of having won a handful of states leading up to the present. That is the beginning of a change in narrative, which is the only thing that can derail Hillary (spare an indictment of course). If he can prevent her from reaching 2,382 without super delegates, then things could get interesting. Whenever someone raises the math, it has to be balanced with the fact that Sanders currently controls the narrative and voter enthusiasm, which are the specific components needed to change the math.
Not the first time, Fox had him up 3 in Feb which provoked a similar "Sanders now leading!" reaction despite the majority of other polls telling a different story (as they are now). Quinnipiac also had him twice within 2 points in Feb, they now show Clinton up 12. He also had much vaunted momentum in Feb, right before Clinton starting beating him handily.
Here's Nate right on time to back me up anyway
Interesting numbers given that Sanders has won the past few states by massive amounts and has been murdering her on event crowd size. I get the impression with Bernie, once the Dem voters actually start to think he has a shot of winning, and then trouncing whoever the GOP nominee is, his numbers will rocket upwards.
Not the first time, Fox had him up 3 in Feb which provoked a similar "Sanders now leading!" reaction despite the majority of other polls telling a different story (as they are now). Quinnipiac also had him twice within 2 points in Feb, they now show Clinton up 12. He also had much vaunted momentum in Feb, right before Clinton starting beating him handily.
Here's Nate right on time to back me up anyway
Statistically he's correct - its an upward climb. We are at a fork in the road in terms of the actual narrative of Sanders' electability changing, which could radically change the data points Silver uses to analyze him getting the nomination.
Why doesn´t the FED raise interest rates, when the economy is "in such a bright spot"?
Yeah, but their entire political system is set-up to promote wealth for big business, which often comes at the expense of overseas economies through their foreign policy.
He outspent Clinton 27-1 in the past 3 states, which were already extremely friendly turfs (very liberal, caucuses, insurgent-friendly). As for event crowd size, it was team Clinton's decision to pursue a more cozy, personal setting such as campaign stops and town halls to let her show off her nuances. Don't get me wrong, even if they tried, I doubted they could get crowds as big as Sanders's, but rallies are expensive and only work if you have low name recognition, so it wouldn't work for them anyway.
Momentum is overrated a lot this cycle. Each time Bernie had a resounding, headlines driven victory (NH, MI), it was followed swiftly by a string of defeats that gave Clinton a big delegates lead. Until and unless something changes in New York, his campaign is still the United of politics, full of promises but too many false dawns while constantly came up short (
, please come, José)Having worked in the investment industry for a while and still being very close to people in ibanks, one of the many reasons why Hong Kong has fallen behind Singapore in many aspects as the Asian financial hub is because of increased regulations, whilst both already have more relaxed rules than the US.
Any attempt by Sanders to drive Wall Street to be more transparent is going to be resisted by probably the best funded special interest group in the history of the world, which basically means nothing will be passed and nothing will be done.
As @Organic Potatoes pointed out, the US economy is doing better than most, and the slowdown has coincided with the end of QE back near the end of 2014. Yellen merely needed to utter those 2 letters and the market has already reacted to it.
I'm quite convinced that Hillary will seal the deal in her home state, a win by 30% or so will end any hope Sanders may have of turning it around.He outspent Clinton 27-1 in the past 3 states, which were already extremely friendly turfs (very liberal, caucuses, insurgent-friendly). As for event crowd size, it was team Clinton's decision to pursue a more cozy, personal setting such as campaign stops and town halls to let her show off her nuances. Don't get me wrong, even if they tried, I doubted they could get crowds as big as Sanders's, but rallies are expensive and only work if you have low name recognition, so it wouldn't work for them anyway.
Momentum is overrated a lot this cycle. Each time Bernie had a resounding, headlines driven victory (NH, MI), it was followed swiftly by a string of defeats that gave Clinton a big delegates lead. Until and unless something changes in New York, his campaign is still the United of politics, full of promises but too many false dawns while constantly came up short (
No by law she can't touch anybody and she touched Trump twice, the secret services tried to keep her away and that's why the other guy stepped in front of her and grabbed her arm. I'm guessing the next step to stop Trump would be a Mexican shooting him
)) He has a big mouth but the media and some people are reacting like the communists in the 70's, leave the guy alone and the other 2 should try to beat him gaining more votes.No by law she can't touch anybody and she touched Trump twice, the secret services tried to keep her away and that's why the other guy stepped in front of her and grabbed her arm. I'm guessing the next step to stop Trump would be a Mexican shooting him
You are as bad as Trump justifying what happened and ignoring the lies. As he said himself he could shoot someone dead and people would still vote for him.
so why don´t you love berny? He´d QE the shit out of the economy.
That's the reason I'm going for Trump, stopping outsourcing should be priority, if a business is moved to other country then that business is not American and should be treated like a foreign business (higher taxes). People think the outsource affected the low skill workers - who the feck cares about them anyway... right?? But I can see in the near future more to come:
Tech support - outsourced
Medical specialists (MRI, radiology, etc) - outsourced
Doctors - Getting there
Then one day we are working in services or we are Wall Street "investors".
The 2 options for a small revolution on this country would be Bernie or Trump, everybody else are the same shit. Both are bad for big business and politicians wouldn't make a killer with inside trading.
Depends who he's shooting and why.
The feck are you talking about? You cannot outsource medical data like MRIs and radiologists. That's a HIPAA violation and how the hell do you even outsource doctors? Get your diagnosis on the phone?
The only people he is shooting are the people who vote for him, when they wake up and realise he is completely full of shit and hasn't got a clue about anything he talks about. And then they realise the only person he cares about is himself.
You seem very invested in this.
I hope Trump wins, solely to see your inevitable meltdown.
No, not at all. Just observing and commenting the same as everyone else, although If Trump wins, the world melts down, simple as that.
- Status