2016 Election Thread

[Craig Arko]

Polls reported today (without link, but I'm working on where these were taken from):

 

Minnesota:

Trump: 26

Carson: 19

Rubio: 16

Cruz: 4

Minnesota, H2H:

Carson 50, Clinton 41

Rubio 47, Clinton 41

Trump 45, Clinton 42

Clinton 46, Cruz 41

Fiorina 45, Clinton 41

If true, this makes me very sad.

[TheLeviathan]

At least we held strong on Cruz!

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

We tried that in the 80s (or was it 90s), it's only gotten worse.

 

 

Really?  I'm still searching for a legit candidate from those eras?  Regan?  Spending increased?  Clinton?  Well, he balanced the budget at least.  Unfortunately, I have little positive to say for him other than that. 

[DaveW]

 

Polls reported today (without link, but I'm working on where these were taken from):

 

Minnesota:
Trump: 26
Carson: 19
Rubio: 16
Cruz: 4

Minnesota, H2H:
Carson 50, Clinton 41
Rubio 47, Clinton 41
Trump 45, Clinton 42
Clinton 46, Cruz 41
Fiorina 45, Clinton 41

I wouldn't read much into these numbers. The GOP are the ones who have been getting all the press/attention etc lately.

Lol Carson.

[DaveW]

 

 

Unfortunately, I have little positive to say for him other than that. 

Most people (and history) have much more positive things to say about him.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I think the R party misses Bill Buckley and the intellectual rigor he brought to it. Today the R party is scared and takes a knee jerk position on a lot of things.

 

I'm curious how you think the D party has changed?

 

As an R in the 90s who now votes Independent, I'll say this.  The D's seem to have changed fundamentally in much the same way as the Rs.  They both support the same elite interests that have bought them out.  The PLATFORMS have changed little since then.  The results, on the other hand, only change based on what will benefit their sponsors financially... which sadly is very little.  Both party's aren't two separate entites, but "two wings of the same bird" leading this nation to destruction. 

 

That bird is statism.  I really think this country would be benefited by two (or more) parties not named Democrat or Republican.  Like it or not, both of them have sold out their base.  Their base keeps holding on to the idea that they serve an ideal that they've long since forgotten or serve a cause that, quite frankly, they are better being in the 'fixing' category (like the Dems in gay marriage or the Reps in abortion) than what they'd actually be in if these issues were resolved as it motivates their base to the polls. 

 

Statism is the true evil, as it keeps Americans polarized over insignficant things such as abortion or gay marriage while they continue to move this country on a path to destruction. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 Billy Clinton however was a great president,

 

You lost me right here.  He balance the budget (which I liked).  Beyond that, not so much.  He had a Republican Congress for most of his time, which essentially means he didn't get much done.  I suppose in today's politics, not getting anything done is preferable to the alternative, but great is not an adjective I'd use to describe that. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

IMO that should be the definition of the word "politician." Maybe Clinton just doesn't know how (or bother) to disguise it as well as the rest.

 

And for those who dislike her because she's a liar, this is all I have to say:

 

 

Now that is funny.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Polls reported today (without link, but I'm working on where these were taken from):

 

Minnesota:
Trump: 26
Carson: 19
Rubio: 16
Cruz: 4

Minnesota, H2H:
Carson 50, Clinton 41
Rubio 47, Clinton 41
Trump 45, Clinton 42
Clinton 46, Cruz 41
Fiorina 45, Clinton 41

 

I know a lot can change and this poll could be off by a lot, but if a Minnesota head to head poll shows this shouldn't the DNC put an instant end to Hillary.  I don't get it.  By the way as a Republican seeing this I say a nomination of anyone but Cruz Paul or Carson would be silly.  I'll take a 40% chance of Cruz over a 90% chance of Rubio.

 

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

At least we held strong on Cruz!

 

Maybe, then again Mondale won Minnesota.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

You lost me right here.  He balance the budget (which I liked).  Beyond that, not so much.  He had a Republican Congress for most of his time, which essentially means he didn't get much done.  I suppose in today's politics, not getting anything done is preferable to the alternative, but great is not an adjective I'd use to describe that. 

 

I'll take the policy of Bill Clinton over the potential of Ted Cruz, and thats with allowing Clinton to flip all he wants on social issues.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Why do voters want to change direction of the country? The economy is doing well more people have equal rights than ever, our international relationships are improving... I just don't see the contempt the gop is trying to portray. This isn't 2008, and we all remember what brought us to that point. That asinine rhetoric is exhibit z of the inability of that party to comprehend what is happening. Rand Paul is the only one that is actually taking about the things that are relevant for this party, but since he is not a party favorite he is being shuffled aside (he is kinda an ass to).

 

I was a big fan of his dad.  He's not quite there in that category, but yeah, he's better than the rest.  Problem is that he's become too mainstream for his dad's followers and is too scary for the establishment. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Most people (and history) have much more positive things to say about him.

 

and they are woefully wrong.  This is a man that sold our nuclear secrets to the Chinese for campaign finances.  He should be in jail.  His only saving grace was to be much like his wife is now and recognize where the wind is blowing and be out in front of it.  But he was very much responsible for the mess we are in.  Glass-Steagle was repealed under his watch.  He was a PR disaster wherever he went, and sold the country out to corporate interests whereever he could.  Look, I'm not a Bush backer by any means, but Clinton wasn't what I'd call a good President.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I'll take the policy of Bill Clinton over the potential of Ted Cruz, and thats with allowing Clinton to flip all he wants on social issues.

 

Your problem is assming the either/or.  The choice isn't Democrat vs. Republican.  That's statist vs. statist.  Your choice is statist vs. change.  Neither Dems nor Reps represent change.  That's a fact. 

[mikecgrimes]

Maybe it's not change in the direction you want, or maybe it's not enough change, but Ted Cruz would be huge change.  You are right for the most part as I even have my doubts on Rand Paul, and Trump would be no change at all.

 

[biggentleben]

Source of the polls (not a great source, frankly): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

[mikecgrimes]

Survey USA is solid, maybe not the best but when there showing big leads for Republicans in Minnesota, you have to wonder what the heck Democrats are thinking.  Any other candidate would destroy every Republican in Minnesota.  Maybe Clinton deserves to be president in some people's minds but the fact people don't like her should matter.

[biggentleben]

 

Survey USA is solid, maybe not the best but when there showing big leads for Republicans in Minnesota, you have to wonder what the heck Democrats are thinking.  Any other candidate would destroy every Republican in Minnesota.  Maybe Clinton deserves to be president in some people's minds but the fact people don't like her should matter.

 

...or you have to wonder where they're polling, and how representative that polling is of the population that will vote in 2016.

[PseudoSABR]

 

  Maybe Clinton deserves to be president in some people's minds but the fact people don't like her should matter.

Likability should be very low on people's consideration of what makes a person qualified to be President.  Whether or not I want to have beer with Hillary is totally irrelevant to the job she's seeking.  

 

The general election polls at this point are trash. A very small portion of the voting populace is paying enough attention to predict how they will vote a year from now.   As you suggest, the poll more accurate measures which candidates people like more.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Really?  I'm still searching for a legit candidate from those eras?  Regan?  Spending increased?  Clinton?  Well, he balanced the budget at least.  Unfortunately, I have little positive to say for him other than that. 

 

We tried voting for three parties, that was what you suggested would fix things. It didn't. 

 

If we want change, we need several things:

 

1. Change the rules of Congress, so that power doesn't accumulate in parties and 3-5 people.

2. Allow for instant run off voting in all contests.

3. Term limits for congress, but I know people have already had that conversation here.

4. Shrink the size of the House. We need this much coverage in the pre-information era. Or, triple the size. One or the other would substantially change the conversation.

5. True transparency in all political donations, even ones that "aren't politics" supposedly.

 

Bah, the list is too long.....

[Mike Sixel]

A bit early for me to care about polls at this point.....

 

and look an article:

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-year-out-ignore-general-election-polls/

[Hrbowski]

Rand Paul has been impressive so far tonight, but Cruz and Rubio are showing that they have the potential to bring it down to themselves.

[DaveW]

Paul has some good ideas, but he just comes off as a know it all Napoleon syndrome swarmy piece of **** too often. That guy just isn't electable, trump successfully bullies him every chance he gets.

[twinsnorth49]

I love this thread....it scares the **** out of me, but I love it.

[Badsmerf]

Very impressed with Paul. No surprise the lack of praise from the establishment. It's funny, some people actually praise Rubio and say he got the better of him when talking about military spending! Are you ****ing serious here? If Paul stocks around I could see him gaining some momentum, but I'm not sure if it will be enough.

[TheLeviathan]

It was interesting to hear the crowd's reactions when the other candidates were (correctly) calling out Trump's preposterous positions.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Very impressed with Paul. No surprise the lack of praise from the establishment. It's funny, some people actually praise Rubio and say he got the better of him when talking about military spending! Are you ****ing serious here? If Paul stocks around I could see him gaining some momentum, but I'm not sure if it will be enough.

 

This was the debate for Paul to get a bump,  if he can get just get to 5th in the polls he becomes a factor again.  basically just has to pass Bush, or wait for one of the top 4 to take a nosedive.  On this date in 2011 Santorum was polling at 1.5 natioanlly compared to Pauls 3.0 and he won several states including Iowa, also this was the day in 2011 when Herman Cains nose dive started.

[Hrbowski]

Jindal out.

[TheLeviathan]

Rand Paul calling out Republicans on military spending is a HUGE moment.

 

He isn't going anywhere in this election, but man I hope he stays in it to keep needling Rubio and others on those policies.

[Badsmerf]

Worst thing about that, is the dumbass pundit said the disagreement was a "wash". Unbelievable. Rand just doesn't have the charisma unfortunately. He has my vote.