2016 Election Thread

[drjim]

So a couple of the leading (really) conservative Christians have more or less endorsed Trump's no Muslim policy and he's crushing the polls in South Carolina.

 

I'm becoming less convinced that he can't win the nomination. I know poll history speaks otherwise but Presidential politics seem a pretty small sample size and one cycle it's going to be wrong.

[Craig Arko]

Muslim reactions to Trump...

 

http://mic.com/articles/129961/these-muslims-got-jokes-for-donald-trump-s-insane-islamophobia

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

A few weeks ago, I began ignoring a certain GOP candidate... In this context, I'll refer to him as "Voldemort".

 

He's a sideshow. If we stop paying attention to him - particularly the media and voters left of center - he'll go away. He's not going to win the nomination. He has absolutely no chance of becoming our next President.

 

 

 

You know, I' d like to believe you here.  I really would.  But sadly, I'm really starting to think he's going to win it. 

 

Drjim nailed it.  Voters are pissed.  Trump Voldemort exists because voters are tired of being screwed by both parties.  They want an outsider.  Like it or not, he gives them that.  And as long as they continue to be complicit in steering rational people away from politics, that is what we are going to get.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

 

 

We KNOW that if the GOP wins, they'll start another ground war that they refuse to pay for by raising taxes to pay for it. They talk a big game about balanced budgets, they talk a good game about accountability and paying as you go, but no one on that side is willing to actually PAY FOR the costs of those wars. In other words, the exact opposite of accountability.

 

This is why I left the GOP.  It's why a lot of voters have left them.  They say they are about balanced budgets, but in reality they aren't.  Just look at the voting record of the supposed GOP savior Paul Ryan, especially during GWB.

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

The fact you would consider voting for this modern-day Hitler tells me all I need to know.

 

Trump or Hillary?  I'd say both pretty much fit that bill.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

God, what has happened to us? I mean, THIS GUY made this speech. THIS GUY.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygTbwGrTELc

 

You know, what bothers me about this is that it was his actions that destabilized that region to what it is today.  ISIS wouldn't exist had we not gone into Iraq guns a-blazin.  So I'm not sure intellectual dignity is quite the words I'd use to describe it.  This man played with a lot of lives (just as politicians have been doing now for many many years), not just the ones that are at stake today, but the hundreds of thousands if Iraqi's that died because of WMD, Iraq's involvement in 911,  Iraqi freedom, and Sadam was a bad man. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Please don't put liberals on the balance scale with the likes of Trump. Seriously. I am a very liberal minded person, very. And I find your use of the word somewhat insulting. Yes, there are 'extremists' on both sides, but being a liberal is no more extreme than being a conservative.

 

Chi, as a friend, and someone who typically falls on opposite spectrums as you, I think I can say that it would be appreciated if that worked two ways.   Part of the problem I see in politics as a whole right now is that both Democrats and Republicans have tried (and succeeded) of fracturing this country into two distinct sides that quite frankly simply stereo type and talk over each other.  Levi is right about his observations of Liberals.  But to be honest it's just as true of Conservatives.  I'm not sure at this point that rational people should be identifying with either.  What those terms meant are long gone and what they are today is something that no one should be proud of. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Trump or Hillary?  I'd say both pretty much fit that bill.

Hillary might be colored with political corruption, but comparing her to Hitler or Trump seems pretty off-base to me.

[Squirrel]

Chi, as a friend, and someone who typically falls on opposite spectrums as you, I think I can say that it would be appreciated if that worked two ways.   Part of the problem I see in politics as a whole right now is that both Democrats and Republicans have tried (and succeeded) of fracturing this country into two distinct sides that quite frankly simply stereo type and talk over each other.  Levi is right about his observations of Liberals.  But to be honest it's just as true of Conservatives.  I'm not sure at this point that rational people should be identifying with either.  What those terms meant are long gone and what they are today is something that no one should be proud of.

 

i think you misunderstood what I was trying to say.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Chi, as a friend, and someone who typically falls on opposite spectrums as you, I think I can say that it would be appreciated if that worked two ways.   Part of the problem I see in politics as a whole right now is that both Democrats and Republicans have tried (and succeeded) of fracturing this country into two distinct sides that quite frankly simply stereo type and talk over each other.  Levi is right about his observations of Liberals.  But to be honest it's just as true of Conservatives.  I'm not sure at this point that rational people should be identifying with either.  What those terms meant are long gone and what they are today is something that no one should be proud of. 

 

Hillary is pretty awful, but she's not Trump.  

 

Also, I wasn't trying to imply that it wasn't true about conservatives.  Part of why I'm so hard on liberals is because I expect them to be rational people.  I've stopped even holding that low expectation for most conservatives.  And it's a huge issue, the left desperately needs some push back so that their generally good ideas get crafted into something useful and effective. 

 

But if your only pushback is coming from the likes of morons like Cruz it's not really effective.

[drjim]

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans can escape this mess.

 

Trump and Carson are both making noise about leaving the party or running as third party candidates. They signed a pledge not to, but have the easy out of saying the party elites are getting together to conspire against them (I always thought this was a likely outcome, and that was before Trump proved as resilient as he has been).

 

The Republicans also need many those voters. Even if Trump/Carson don't leave the party they have to be beaten in a way that won't alienate a significant amount of those voter. Cruz seems like he is angling to try this tactic, will be interesting to see he can pull it off. And Cruz has plenty of his own problems/liabilities.

 

So they have to beat Trump (and Carson), but in a way that is seen as legitimate so they won't bolt the party. Good luck.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You know, what bothers me about this is that it was his actions that destabilized that region to what it is today. ISIS wouldn't exist had we not gone into Iraq guns a-blazin. So I'm not sure intellectual dignity is quite the words I'd use to describe it. This man played with a lot of lives (just as politicians have been doing now for many many years), not just the ones that are at stake today, but the hundreds of thousands if Iraqi's that died because of WMD, Iraq's involvement in 911, Iraqi freedom, and Sadam was a bad man.

No arguments here. His actions were deplorable but at least he had the decency to not vilify 1.5-ish billion people.

[mikecgrimes]

 

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans can escape this mess.

 

Trump and Carson are both making noise about leaving the party or running as third party candidates. They signed a pledge not to, but have the easy out of saying the party elites are getting together to conspire against them (I always thought this was a likely outcome, and that was before Trump proved as resilient as he has been).

 

The Republicans also need many those voters. Even if Trump/Carson don't leave the party they have to be beaten in a way that won't alienate a significant amount of those voter. Cruz seems like he is angling to try this tactic, will be interesting to see he can pull it off. And Cruz has plenty of his own problems/liabilities.

 

So they have to beat Trump (and Carson), but in a way that is seen as legitimate so they won't bolt the party. Good luck.

 

If Cruz isn't the nominee the Republican party is dead to me.  I've tried and seen the third party thing fail to much to think thats ever a meaningful option for me again, but maybe Trump can bring life back into it if we have to go that route.

[TheLeviathan]

If Cruz gets the nomination the Republican party is dead for winning the election.  So I guess take your pick which matters more to you.

[ashbury]

If Cruz gets the nomination the Republican party is dead for winning the election.  So I guess take your pick which matters more to you.

We're just one 9-11 style disaster away from electing whomever the Republicans nominate. So I wouldn't get too overconfident, and I don't root for them to nominate someone "unelectable". Upsets happen.

[TheLeviathan]

 

We're just one 9-11 style disaster away from electing whomever the Republicans nominate. So I wouldn't get too overconfident, and I don't root for them to nominate someone "unelectable". Upsets happen.

 

Oh I agree about the disaster and I don't rule out the Republicans winning.  I rule out Ted "Gomer" Cruz from winning.

[mikecgrimes]

I find it comical when people say a true Republican can't win.  Why did Scott Walker win his recall and reelection?  It sure as heck wasn't because he said oh fine Democrats I'll give you most of what you want.  People like me typically don't vote Republican for a reason.  George Bush was electable and most Democrats and I agree he was horible.  The last thing I care about is what candidates people who wouldn't vote for John Kasich Jeb Bush or Chris Christe also wouldn't vote for.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Winning a state election and a national election aren't the same thing. The most populated areas of this country are blue by default. It's hard to win the preisdency without NY, CA, IL, etc. Bush won because he was somewhat moderate and because the Democrats rolled out some truly laughable candidates to oppose him.

 

In today's social environment, I struggle to see a "true" republican win because their social platform isn't palatable with the majority of America. I know it's the reason I went from voting mostly republican to splitting votes to not voting republican at all in the span of a decade.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Winning a state election and a national election aren't the same thing. The most populated areas of this country are blue by default. It's hard to win the preisdency without NY, CA, IL, etc. Bush won because he was somewhat moderate and because the Democrats rolled out some truly laughable candidates to oppose him.

In today's social environment, I struggle to see a "true" republican win because their social platform isn't palatable with the majority of America. I know it's the reason I went from voting mostly republican to splitting votes to not voting republican at all in the span of a decade.

 

If thats the case Marco Rubio can't win, so why not nominate Ted Cruz?  If thats not the case Ted Cruz could win so again why not nominate Ted Cruz.  If you don't like Ted Cruz show up at a repubican caucus.

[TheLeviathan]

I have a feeling Rubio will be far more centric if he wins the nomination.  Cruz can't help his own stupidity and offensively neo-con nature.

 

Cruz will outright offend away enough people like me who would vote fiscal conservative with his other nonsense to be unelectable.  

[drjim]

 

If thats the case Marco Rubio can't win, so why not nominate Ted Cruz?  If thats not the case Ted Cruz could win so again why not nominate Ted Cruz.  If you don't like Ted Cruz show up at a repubican caucus.

 

I agree with you that Cruz is more likely to win a general than Rubio. Rubio might tack a little more to the center, but it's not like he would sway any of the people that post here.

 

I also suspect that the country isn't going to vote another young, inexperienced Senator to be President.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I agree with you that Cruz is more likely to win a general than Rubio. Rubio might tack a little more to the center, but it's not like he would sway any of the people that post here.

 

I also suspect that the country isn't going to vote another young, inexperienced Senator to be President.

I think Rubio has a better shot than Cruz. Rubio will have an easier time swinging a *few* moderates his way and he has a better shot at drawing a larger segment of the Hispanic voting bloc. Plus, he has Florida in his pocket, one of the most important swing states.

 

I don't think either has a good chance to win a general election, though... Especially Cruz, whose policy isn't only at odds with a large segment of America, his policy is downright despised by a large segment of the population.

 

Rubio can walk back from a few of his policies and rally a few moderates. I don't think Cruz can do that, as he's been publicly trumpeting some really bad ideas for a long time.

 

The only GOP candidates I believe are centrist enough to make a run are Kasich and Christie but both have significant warts... Then again, so do Hillary and Bernie.

 

It will be an interesting 4-5 months leading to Super Tuesday.

[DaveW]

Chris Christie, absolutely not. Kasich is the only decent human out of that whole group, of course he doesn't stand a chance.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree with you that Cruz is more likely to win a general than Rubio. Rubio might tack a little more to the center, but it's not like he would sway any of the people that post here.

 

I also suspect that the country isn't going to vote another young, inexperienced Senator to be President.

 

Rubio could absolutely sway me over Clinton.  You have to remember, moderates are going to go "eww....Hillary" when they see the likely Democratic nominee so the middle IS winnable by a Republican that is just willing to not say incredibly stupid things.

 

I think Rubio is willing to be a rational, not brazenly stupid candidate.  Ted Cruz is nothing else but a brazenly stupid, irrational candidate.  

 

Guys like Cruz and Carson are far closer to being Trump than they are a viable candidate.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Chris Christie, absolutely not. Kasich is the only decent human out of that whole group, of course he doesn't stand a chance.

I don't hate Chris Christie. I don't see an election where I vote for the guy but he's had enough stand-up moments where I don't entirely despise him.

 

I want to like Rubio but the guy is simply too socially conservative for my liking... But, overall, I think he's probably the best chance of a GOP victory because, as you said, Kasich has no shot at the nomination.

[Mike Sixel]

It is hard to vote for a "middle" GOP candidate, when he comes with the GOP House and Senate, who think climate change is a hoax pulled off by millions of scientists....and the gays should not have equal rights under the law.....and that they don't have to approve a budget, and spend hundreds of hours voting to repeal a law they can't repeal, and, and, and.....

[gunnarthor]

 

I don't hate Chris Christie. I don't see an election where I vote for the guy but he's had enough stand-up moments where I don't entirely despise him.

 

I want to like Rubio but the guy is simply too socially conservative for my liking... But, overall, I think he's probably the best chance of a GOP victory because, as you said, Kasich has no shot at the nomination.

I honestly think Rubio will beat Clinton in the general.  An article in the Post today showed that Rubio was doing pretty well with young voters (with the caveat that polls this far out are meaningless).  

 

But he's a pretty good politician and he'll contrast nicely (for the GOP) against Clinton.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I honestly think Rubio will beat Clinton in the general.  An article in the Post today showed that Rubio was doing pretty well with young voters (with the caveat that polls this far out are meaningless).  

 

But he's a pretty good politician and he'll contrast nicely (for the GOP) against Clinton.  

He might be able to beat Clinton in a general but I believe the GOP base has skewed its politicians so far to the right that it will be hard to walk back to center in November.

 

And as much as I dislike Clinton's politics, she's a woman and a damn polished politician who excels in debate. I think that will play well with enough moderates to win her the job, as much as it pains me to say it. IMO, she's more palatable and less dangerous to the country than most of the GOP field but I just can't trust the woman. I have no idea what she actually stands for as a person.

[gunnarthor]

 

He might be able to beat Clinton in a general but I believe the GOP base has skewed its politicians so far to the right that it will be hard to walk back to center in November.

 

And as much as I dislike Clinton's politics, she's a woman and a damn polished politician who excels in debate. I think that will play well with enough moderates to win her the job, as much as it pains me to say it. IMO, she's more palatable and less dangerous to the country than most of the GOP field but I just can't trust the woman. I have no idea what she actually stands for as a person.

She's a better debater than Sanders (although I thought O'Malley, given what time he had, was better than both.  I wish he had gotten the Sanders surge instead but Baltimore ruined that) but she's not a great debater.  I think Rubio is much better and closer to the Clinton/Obama level than any GOP candidate in some time.  I don't like his positions but he's a great politician - he stays on point, rarely gaffs, looks good, knows his sound bites and has created a good image for the general election.

 

You're right though that getting the nomination while still being electable to the masses will be difficult.  The GOP made Romney look like a far right crazy guy after all. (Reminds me of the GOP story in 04 - we made Al Gore look like an elitist New England liberal and now we get to go after Kerry? - but in reverse).

 

I share your problems with Clinton.  I'm a pretty reliable dem but I will not vote for her.  I'll throw my vote away and vote for the Crazy-ass Socialist Workers Party United or something before voting for her (or Rubio).

[diehardtwinsfan]

I'd hardly call voting 3rd party throwing your vote away.  It isn't like that one vote is going to change the election, and if enough people did it, it might finally force the Reps and Dems to fix things, or it will marginalize them and someone else will take over.  I'd call that largely win win.