2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Revan said:
Sure, but it is interesting to see if they will go for Rubio or for Bush.

I think that Rubio has a higher probability of winning against Clinton, than Bush.
Click to expand...

Problem with Rubio is that he's a political lightweight, and the Dems have a ready made counter in Castro to combat his Hispanic advantages.

The GOP should have persuaded Romney to run again, proven record in politics, no baggage ala Jeb. However, a moderate like him is very unlikely to win the primaries in this current partisan, toxic political atmosphere
 
Plus Rubio will run into trouble with his position on immigration, which will severely cut into his Latino support.
 
berbatrick said:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/07/hillary-clinton-opposes-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp

Bernie claims his first prize since the campaign started. Will be interesting to see her talk about NAFTA after this.
Click to expand...

Why should she?

One good thing about being establishment is that you can flip flop all the time, it's what people have come to expect of you :lol:

I think Bernie's number will start to go down after the upcoming debate. He's too passionate and can appear too aggressive, whereas Clinton generally hold her own very well.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Why should she?
Click to expand...

Because having done this reversal on a deal which she was literally the main mover of, I think Sanders would ask her in the debate about the differences with Bill Clinton's NAFTA (which she supported too...)

I think his future depends completely on the 1st 2 primaries and the margins involved. He's probably winning NH, if he wins Iowa I think his momentum will get him a lot more states, if not he will fizzle out.
 
berbatrick said:
Because having done this reversal on a deal which she was literally the main mover of, I think Sanders would ask her in the debate about the differences with Bill Clinton's NAFTA (which she supported too...)

I think his future depends completely on the 1st 2 primaries and the margins involved. He's probably winning NH, if he wins Iowa I think his momentum will get him a lot more states, if not he will fizzle out.
Click to expand...

He will win both, but still lose by a big margin.

Iowa and New Hampshire are white as only white can be, very parochial and have a streak of choosing upstarts over establishment candidates. Clinton leads comfortably in all other 48 states and after Super Tuesday it'll become clear.

Bernie can play up the populist card all he wants, without party's backing there's no way to get the nomination.

As for the trade deal, she'll stick to the lines that the final product is not what she was working towards, blame good old Barry, as it is.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
He will win both, but still lose by a big margin.

Iowa and New Hampshire are white as only white can be, very parochial and have a streak of choosing upstarts over establishment candidates. Clinton leads comfortably in all other 48 states and after Super Tuesday it'll become clear.

Bernie can play up the populist card all he wants, without party's backing there's no way to get the nomination.

As for the trade deal, she'll stick to the lines that the final product is not what she was working towards, blame good old Barry, as it is.
Click to expand...
I think she'll win both, don't think Biden will stand.
 
Red Dreams said:
ways to go. You are probably right. If she does, she will easily be our next President.
Click to expand...

McCarthy killed any chance the GOP had :lol:, next House Speaker, going on television, admitting that the whole Benghazi panel is a farce designed to bring down Hillary. If the Clinton team play their cards right there will be a big turn out from women to defend their sisterhood
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
McCarthy killed any chance the GOP had :lol:, next House Speaker, going on television, admitting that the whole Benghazi panel is a farce designed to bring down Hillary. If the Clinton team play their cards right there will be a big turn out from women to defend their sisterhood
Click to expand...

Had to be named McCarthy. What a legendary name.
 
Problem with Sanders is he fell into the good old trap of promising too much. Sure, free universal healthcare, free college education, raising the minimum wage are all noble ideas, but in the current US market it'd literally cost trillions to implement. WSJ estimated the whole package at $18 tn., which is bull crap due to their neo con agenda, but the real number would still be very big. How is he going to pay for it? Good luck with coming up with a tax code that can be written, passed and implemented in 4 years to tax the rich substantially more.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Problem with Sanders is he fell into the good old trap of promising too much. Sure, free universal healthcare, free college education, raising the minimum wage are all noble ideas, but in the current US market it'd literally cost trillions to implement. WSJ estimated the whole package at $18 tn., which is bull crap due to their neo con agenda, but the real number would still be very big. How is he going to pay for it? Good luck with coming up with a tax code that can be written, passed and implemented in 4 years to tax the rich substantially more.
Click to expand...

With single payer, health care cost would drop. No more insurance companies.
 
Red Dreams said:
With single payer, health care cost would drop. No more insurance companies.
Click to expand...

And how long, and how much money you'd have to spend battling their lobby in Congress? It took most of Obama's political credit to pass a conservative healthcare law, and that's when he had both House and Senate.

Ramping up the populist rhetoric is fine, actually accomplish it is another matter.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
McCarthy killed any chance the GOP had :lol:, next House Speaker, going on television, admitting that the whole Benghazi panel is a farce designed to bring down Hillary. If the Clinton team play their cards right there will be a big turn out from women to defend their sisterhood
Click to expand...

Couldn't even secure the House Majority seat. He's dropped out of the race. Cue some Tea Party feckwit taking his place.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/polit...can-vote-mccarthy-webster-chaffetz/index.html
 
Yep, it definitely cost him the job. He basically admitted on live television that the GOP's interest in the Benghazi hearings was to erode Hillary Clinton's popularity in advance of her potential Presidential run. In effect, he told the truth and it cost him the speakership.
 
Raoul said:
Yep, it definitely cost him the job. He basically admitted on live television that the GOP's interest in the Benghazi hearings was to erode Hillary Clinton's popularity in advance of her potential Presidential run. In effect, he told the truth and it cost him the speakership.
Click to expand...

Oh well. He'll probably get a chapter in the next "Profiles of Courage"
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Problem with Sanders is he fell into the good old trap of promising too much. Sure, free universal healthcare, free college education, raising the minimum wage are all noble ideas, but in the current US market it'd literally cost trillions to implement. WSJ estimated the whole package at $18 tn., which is bull crap due to their neo con agenda, but the real number would still be very big. How is he going to pay for it? Good luck with coming up with a tax code that can be written, passed and implemented in 4 years to tax the rich substantially more.
Click to expand...

Somebody likes HillBill
 
Ramshock said:
Somebody likes HillBill
Click to expand...
I'm in the same boat with most people, as long as it's not a Republican it's fine. Cold logic dictates that what Sanders proposed is unfeasible in the current climate. If he was serious, he should have heeded the Havard guy, Lessig. Make campaign finance reform the n1 priority.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I'm in the same boat with most people, as long as it's not a Republican it's fine. Cold logic dictates that what Sanders proposed is unfeasible in the current climate. If he was serious, he should have heeded the Havard guy, Lessig. Make campaign finance reform the n1 priority.
Click to expand...

Yes unfortunately. I feel he is a few decades too late as well.
 
Barrack Obama got a lot of stick from progressives for being too centrists on a number of issues which I think is unfair. He's said on numerous occasions that he wants to set the ball rolling on those issues and let those who come after him expand the agenda.
 
151009-republicans-want-us-to-believe-they-can-lead-the-country.jpg
 
I was reading yesterday that moderate Repubs could form a coalition with the Dems in order to marginalise the hard-right, such is their anger. Is this really a possibility or just wishful thinking? They certainly need to do something, and fast.
 
Ubik said:
I was reading yesterday that moderate Repubs could form a coalition with the Dems in order to marginalise the hard-right, such is their anger. Is this really a possibility or just wishful thinking? They certainly need to do something, and fast.
Click to expand...

That means surrendering the White House for possibly decades. They are sick and tired of the teabaggers but that's a price not many will be willing to pay.

Will be interesting to see what House Dems do next. If Ryan sticks to his refusal to run for Speakership then the only feasible way of cobbling together 218 votes is with Dem votes.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
That means surrendering the White House for possibly decades. They are sick and tired of the teabaggers but that's a price not many will be willing to pay.

Will be interesting to see what House Dems do next. If Ryan sticks to his refusal to run for Speakership then the only feasible way of cobbling together 218 votes is with Dem votes.
Click to expand...

Repubs wont win the WH for decades in its current form. The latino vote is very important and they just wont change their stance on immigration.
 
Ramshock said:
Repubs wont win the WH for decades in its current form. The latino vote is very important and they just wont change their stance on immigration.
Click to expand...
They have a distant shot if the economy totally tanked. Break away from the teabaggers means saying goodbye to a big bloc of quite active voters.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
They have a distant shot if the economy totally tanked. Break away from the teabaggers means saying goodbye to a big bloc of quite active voters.
Click to expand...

Considering that the best economists in the country served and still serve the Dems for decades, the Republicans can already take a seat and wait for a long time. Also coincidence or not, the worst recessions occurred under Republican presidencies.
 
Red Dreams said:
what you mean is the GOP changes its platform and moves closer to the Dems.

difficult to see.
Click to expand...

They can always look up North for inspiration, and see how Canada is doing with a genuine 3-party race since the last election in 2011 and now even closer in 2015. Parties don't have to start big in order to end up getting a president elected one day; they just have to know their main electoral base and then expand it little by little. Parties who can't reach moderates are just doomed for failure; that's why the Canadian Tories usually end up with long spells in the shithole after a few years of dominance.
 
Kakeru said:
They can always look up North for inspiration, and see how Canada is doing with a genuine 3-party race since the last election in 2011 and now even closer in 2015. Parties don't have to start big in order to end up getting a president elected one day; they just have to know their main electoral base and then expand it little by little. Parties who can't reach moderates are just doomed for failure; that's why the Canadian Tories usually end up with long spells in the shithole after a few years of dominance.
Click to expand...

thing is the Dems base is growing so fast. In time even the gerrymandering will not help the GOP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.