US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[IceHism]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

If anything, Trump said things to please the Far Right, but he was careful to only say things that HE CAN'T ACTUALLY DO. I believe that is his strategy, in that even though his words are extreme, the moderates are aware there is exactly zero chance of them happening in reality.

Trump doesn't need to flip-flop to the center after winning the primaries, because the Far Right statements were impossibilities to begin with. No one is remotely worried that Trump would actually generate a mass exodus of undocumented workers, or build a new Great Wall. Trump can say crazy things knowing it was never on the cards, and he still wins the Primary.

On the other hand if a candidate promote Far Right policies that are actually feasible to do, that would have caused moderates and independents to get scared.

He doesn't necessarily need to flip-flop but eventually down the road, he will have to actually say things that he can and will actually do otherwise he would never beat the democrats in the national election. My guess is that he will start saying moderate things as he won't reach enough votes to win by appeasing the far right in the nationals.

Regarding the democrat debate, i think everyone except Sanders and Clinton should drop out already. Also, it's nice to see Sanders is well received. Is Biden still planning on running?

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

it is easy to click a button online but how many of these people actually vote?

Agree that internet poll don't matter much, but they both opened/ taken for very short time during/ around the debate. So i expect that if you can be arsed enough to watch the debate live and interact the social media in the same time, you are more likely to vote.

It focused on a certain demography through, so will only tell half of the story

Originally Posted by IceHism

He doesn't necessarily need to flip-flop but eventually down the road, he will have to actually say things that he can and will actually do otherwise he would never beat the democrats in the national election. My guess is that he will start saying moderate things as he won't reach enough votes to win by appeasing the far right in the nationals.

Regarding the democrat debate, i think everyone except Sanders and Clinton should drop out already. Also, it's nice to see Sanders is well received. Is Biden still planning on running?

Biden? i think he's out. As there is so few debates left, and he still hasn't even got his campaign up running yet. He really has too limited time to do anything right now

Not to mention his family issue. Honestly I don't care about him much during Obama's 8 years. But have great respect, admiration on how he handled such huge family loss

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

If Biden wanted in, he would have made up his mind before the 1st debate. Now that he missed that it is unlikely for him to run.

[SeijiSensei]

Hillary's performance probably reassured waverers who might have switched to Biden.

I now don't think we'll see Biden unless Hillary hits a roadblock of some kind next spring. I expect she'll lose New Hampshire and perhaps Iowa, but win Nevada and South Carolina and start piling up victories in the Southern states on March 1st. I like Bernie's focus on inequality and the dysfunction of contemporary American capitalism, but it's very hard to see him in the Oval Office.

I thought O'Malley acquitted himself well. I'll be curious to see whether his polling numbers get a bump in the weeks ahead. He has the making of a decent vice presidential candidate were it not for his coming from a small state like Maryland. (Yes, I know Biden is from Delaware, but the 2008 election was pretty sui generis. Clinton will need to hold on to at least one or two of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Sherrod Brown might be a good pick being from Ohio and standing to Clinton's left.)

[GDB]

From Maryland, am democrat/moderate, can confirm O'Malley was a freaking awful Governor. Ehrlich (the republican before him) was about 37x better.

[MrTerrorist]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/rqgvll8W7Jk

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Xellos-_^]

- Hillary just got a nice 11 hour informational courtesy for the House Republicans.
- Jeb just order a across the board pay cut as he is running out of money.
- Almost end of Oct and Trump still leads the pack.
- If Rubio somehow wins the Republican nomination, i am putting money on one of the Castro brothers being choose for VP.

[MrTerrorist]

YouTube

https://youtu.be/oEz08IuRlv4

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[SeijiSensei]

71 percent of Republicans think Trump most electable; party professionals disagree

Carson, Bush, and Rubio are all thought electable by over 60 percent of Republicans; the rest of the field score lower.

In July Clinton held an eighteen point lead over Trump in trial heats. That margin has narrowed to just two: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...ump-vs-clinton

On the Benghazi front, a poll from CNN/ORC shows that half the Republicans interviewed thought the Select Committee was motivated by "political gain" rather than acting "objectively." That's not necessarily a sign of criticism of the Committee within Republican ranks. Roughly a third of Republicans said the Committee was politically motivated and thought that was just fine. An even greater share of independents felt the same way.

http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/...d-and-like-it/

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

71 percent of Republicans think Trump most electable; party professionals disagree

Carson, Bush, and Rubio are all thought electable by over 60 percent of Republicans; the rest of the field score lower.

In July Clinton held an eighteen point lead over Trump in trial heats. That margin has narrowed to just two: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/...ump-vs-clinton

On the Benghazi front, a poll from CNN/ORC shows that half the Republicans interviewed thought the Select Committee was motivated by "political gain" rather than acting "objectively." That's not necessarily a sign of criticism of the Committee within Republican ranks. Roughly a third of Republicans said the Committee was politically motivated and thought that was just fine. An even greater share of independents felt the same way.

http://www.politicsbythenumbers.org/...d-and-like-it/

national polls don't really mean much. Is there a state by state poll?

[Solace]

You know, I honestly have no idea what Hillary even stands for anymore.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by Solace

You know, I honestly have no idea what Hillary even stands for anymore.

Stagnation.

[risingstar3110]

I have a creeping feeling that Republican will win the White House if Hillary is nominated.


Maybe it could come from reading too much shounen on my part. How the established candidate that just lost the election/competition last time around, almost always will get their ass whooped by a new underdog element. But yeah, it just a feeling, intuition almost.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I have a creeping feeling that Republican will win the White House if Hillary is nominated.

If Hillary is the nominee, and lost, it is because Democrats are even more stupid than Republicans.

At least Republicans still vote. Democrats who refuse to vote are worse, and if they want the GOP to run the country then they get exactly what they deserve.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

national polls don't really mean much. Is there a state by state poll?

There are lots of state polls, especially in the early primary states. However this particular question about the Benghazi investigation comes from a national poll, and given the subject, I don't see a reason to think it's not representative of Republicans nationally. How many Republicans were cheering on the Select Committee is not a state-by-state matter.

The "trial heats" concern the general election, so asking a national sample is the correct choice. Obviously asking people how they are going to vote next November isn't predictive, but the trends are informative.

State primary polls generally track the national trends, especially outside of Iowa and maybe New Hampshire as well. Iowa's Republicans include a much more influential bloc of religious conservatives than exist nation-wide. NH Republicans are more moderate than Republicans nationally. Iowa's Democrats are closer to the national distribution of opinion. New Hampshire's Democrats are more liberal, because many of them migrated from liberal Massachusetts over the past few decades.

[aldw]

Originally Posted by Solace

You know, I honestly have no idea what Hillary even stands for anymore.

Both Clintons have always been rank opportunists, and will say or appeal as necessary to win elections at any cost.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

If Hillary is the nominee, and lost, it is because Democrats are even more stupid than Republicans.

At least Republicans still vote. Democrats who refuse to vote are worse, and if they want the GOP to run the country then they get exactly what they deserve.

At this point having a GOP candidate like Trump win the presidency would actually be the safer course of action than letting Hillary win, Trump may be crazy in ways but does have some practical savviness, whereas Hillary's opportunism will result in problems even bigger than the legislative mess that helped produce the 2008 Financial crisis.

[Xellos-_^]

and the progressives on board are all missing forest for tress. It doesn't matter what Hillary stands for. Even if you don't like her, you should still her for one reason and the same i would not support trump or any republican.

The Supreme Court, 4 of current 9 justices are 70+ in age. Whoever is president for the next 8 years would have a chance appoint at least 1 if not 4 justices.

if the liberals stay home on election night because they don't like the Clintons and a Republican wins. Don't start complaining when the another Conservative is appointed to the Supreme Court.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by aldw

At this point having a GOP candidate like Trump win the presidency would actually be the safer course of action than letting Hillary win, Trump may be crazy in ways but does have some practical savviness, whereas Hillary's opportunism will result in problems even bigger than the legislative mess that helped produce the 2008 Financial crisis.

I can't agree. But if you really believe Trump is somehow safer than Clinton then you deserve to get Trump.

[aldw]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I can't agree. But if you really believe Trump is somehow safer than Clinton then you deserve to get Trump.

I don't mean it's necessarily a good thing overall, just slightly less toxic at best. It just show how sclerotic US sociopolitical factors have become.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by aldw

I didn't mean it's necessarily a good thing overall, just slightly less toxic at best.

The only reason Trump seemed moderate is because you are comparing him to the rest of the GOP field. He is NOT a moderate. For you to think he is less toxic than Clinton, you had to have failed to compare the two of them by themselves.

But it is your vote. If you want Trump, you get Trump.