2016 Election Thread

[Shane Wahl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E

 

Dylan Ratigan's epic rant from several years ago. He is wildly correct. And it points to a non-Clinton answer.

[nicksaviking]

 

Vegas has the money on Trump, and I think for good reason.

 

If Trump goes into the convention with the most delegates, and more importantly significantly more "votes" then the other candidates, I don't see how you can "steal" the nomination from him and effectively keep the party together.

 

If they do steal it, then Trump goes scorched earth, runs third party (splits the GOP as a whole) and not only gives the Dems a landslide in the POTUS race, but could tip the scales in several house/senate seats as well.

 

Yeah the Republican leaders already know the end is near and the party is going to have get a serious make over. They just have to decide if they want to waive the white flag and blow it up before November by blocking Trump causing a third party to steal a good chunk of their long time support, or wait until after November by letting Trump get the nomination. If they wait until after, they may be able to pull a "See I told you so" to the Trump supporters when/if Clinton wins in a landslide. "See I told you so" might get a few of them back, or at least enough that they can still at least attempt to continue on the path they are currently on.

 

Of course they would also run the risk of the nutjobs grabbing more momentum if it's somehow not a landslide. I think they let Trump have it and secretly hope he gets annihilated. I think that's their only hope of keeping anything close to the status quo for the party, and I think that's what the leaders care most about.

 

Also, I think most of the party leaders think Cruz is just as bad as Trump, I don't think they'd split the party for his benefit.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's not the socialism angle so much as it is that Warren is kind of a one-trick pony.  She's really good at that one trick, but a President is about much more than income inequality.  Hell, you could argue out of all the major offices to hold, President may be the least influential on that front as any.  

 

She does and knows one thing really, really well, but she has basically no legs to stand on in regards to a host of other issues, foreign policy chief among them.  The world is a big, complicated, and scary place and it takes a lot to try and manage those issues.  I hold up foreign policy - for the office of President - as by far the most important trait I look for in a candidate.  And, like Bernie, I just don't think she has anything to offer in that regard.

 

But she's doing a damn fine job keeping the big banks in check and being an advocate against that.  She should probably just stick to what she knows than try and stretch herself to cover a lot of things she isn't as comfortable with.

I agree but she'd make one hell of a VP. Give her 4-8 years in the second chair and she might be ready for the big chair.

 

But I think the chances of Hillary nominating a woman as VP is somewhere around -3% because reasons.

 

Man, I just can't stand Hillary.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I agree but she'd make one hell of a VP. Give her 4-8 years in the second chair and she might be ready for the big chair.

 

But I think the chances of Hillary nominating a woman as VP is somewhere around -3% because reasons.

 

Man, I just can't stand Hillary.

 

Biden-Warren would have been a better ticket for sure.  I don't have anything against Elizabeth Warren, I disagree with some of her solutions but she's a very smart and on point about what she is passionate about.  She's just not a good Presidential candidate.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Biden-Warren would have been a better ticket for sure.  I don't have anything against Elizabeth Warren, I disagree with some of her solutions but she's a very smart and on point about what she is passionate about.  She's just not a good Presidential candidate.

I think she's a bad presidential candidate today but I think she could be turned into a good candidate with more experience... That's why I'd like to see her as a VP candidate.

 

She's certainly smart enough to handle the other stuff, she just needs more hands-on time with it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think she's a bad presidential candidate today but I think she could be turned into a good candidate with more experience... That's why I'd like to see her as a VP candidate.

 

She's certainly smart enough to handle the other stuff, she just needs more hands-on time with it.

 

I think by the time that's happening we're talking about a 75 year old candidate.  People are going to have to let that idea go.  

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think by the time that's happening we're talking about a 75 year old candidate.  People are going to have to let that idea go.  

Wow, she's way older than I thought. I had her pegged in her mid to late 50s... She's 66 years old.

 

So yeah.

[Squirrel]

 

Wow, she's way older than I thought. I had her pegged in her mid to late 50s... She's 66 years old.

 

So yeah.

And turning 67 in a couple of months.

 

That's why I said what I did about this up several posts.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yeah, missed the earlier posts. I tuned out of this thread a few days ago and missed a bunch of stuff.

[Squirrel]

 

Yeah, missed the earlier posts. I tuned out of this thread a few days ago and missed a bunch of stuff.

Yeah, no, you didn't miss much.

[Craig Arko]

I'm sure there will be much rejoicing to hear that Minnesota is seriously looking at ditching the caucus system for primaries instead.

[mikecgrimes]

 

I'm sure there will be much rejoicing to hear that Minnesota is seriously looking at ditching the caucus system for primaries instead.

 

Still if you don't participate at the most basic level you don't have a true say in the process.  Typically the primary results settle things and the appearance of having a say is good enough, but if you do not get involved in choosing delegates you don't have a true voice. 

 

The only reason I don't hate this idea completely is because I still will be involved, but it will be a shame when others who would otherwise be involved don't either learn in school or from the media there are options outside of a primary vote that will make a true difference.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Vegas has the money on Trump

 

Today predictit pushed trump below 50 for the first time since he started to gain momentum last fall.  Currently sitting at 46 so technically at least on one betting site he is favored to not get the nomination.

[Craig Arko]

Sen. Warren speaks for herself.

 

[DaveW]

 

Today predictit pushed trump below 50 for the first time since he started to gain momentum last fall.  Currently sitting at 46 so technically at least on one betting site he is favored to not get the nomination.

What on earth is that?

 

Again, i will take Vegas numbers over some random website numbers anyday.

[mikecgrimes]

Predictor is a real betting site. Technically I don't think you can legally bet on this in Vegas so those odds are just for show and don't move based on the behavior of betters.

[DaveW]

 

Predictor is a real betting site. Technically I don't think you can legally bet on this in Vegas so those odds are just for show and don't move based on the behavior of betters.

Ah, that is a good point, technically you "can't" but places like Bovada etc list the odds and allow anyone to essentially bet.

 

As of now, Trump is sitting 1:3 or very close across the board ($300 to win $100)  Cruz is sitting 4:1 ($100 to win $400)

 

Trump is still very much the "favorite" where it really counts/experts etc

 

Paul Ryan at 22:1 would be my "darkhorse" though he is awful as well. But $22:1 is pretty good odds.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Ah, that is a good point, technically you "can't" but places like Bovada etc list the odds and allow anyone to essentially bet.

 

As of now, Trump is sitting 1:3 or very close across the board ($300 to win $100)  Cruz is sitting 4:1 ($100 to win $400)

 

Trump is still very much the "favorite" where it really counts/experts etc

 

Paul Ryan at 22:1 would be my "darkhorse" though he is awful as well. But $22:1 is pretty good odds.

 

That's a huge difference between the 1.1:1 at predictit.  Cruz odds are basically the same with Ryan being about 8:1 at predictit.  The explanation might be that betters overseas don't understand the brokered convention rules like we do, they might think yeah but he will still get the nomination even if they know he might fall short on delegates.  Another thing to keep in mind if you listened to Rush Limbaugh you would never have any clue that Trump isn't well positioned to win over delegates so if you're from England you conclude that even Rush isn't on board so that idea must be crazy.  Also keep in mind if those casinos aren't offering opposing bets with 3:1 odds for or at least 5:2 then the odds are nothing more then a novelty bet for suckers.

[Craig Arko]

[TheLeviathan]

He forgot to tell him about the sign to keep those damn kids from playing on it too.....

[Mike Sixel]

If only people would look at the actual budgets, and not the memes......

 

Sanders actually proposes moving all our money from being spent on defense, and subsidizing companies, and charging rich people lower tax rates......unlike others, that just want to give more money to defense, and cut taxes on the wealthy, and only help the rich and the war mongers.

 

It isn't about free stuff, it is about spending the money differently. But, I know, that's actually too difficult to even imagine.

[Craig Arko]

 

If only people would look at the actual budgets, and not the memes......

 

Sanders actually proposes moving all our money from being spent on defense, and subsidizing companies, and charging rich people lower tax rates......unlike others, that just want to give more money to defense, and cut taxes on the wealthy, and only help the rich and the war mongers.

 

It isn't about free stuff, it is about spending the money differently. But, I know, that's actually too difficult to even imagine.

Correct. I for one won't mind seeing the defense budget be put to some use better than pork.

[Willihammer]

 

If only people would look at the actual budgets, and not the memes......

 

Sanders actually proposes moving all our money from being spent on defense, and subsidizing companies, and charging rich people lower tax rates......unlike others, that just want to give more money to defense, and cut taxes on the wealthy, and only help the rich and the war mongers.

 

It isn't about free stuff, it is about spending the money differently. But, I know, that's actually too difficult to even imagine.

I admit I'm cherry picking but when I googled Sanders policy on military cuts (there is no mention of military cuts on his campaign website's budget page), I came across this article.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

Turns out Sanders, like everyone else in Congress, loved to talk about cutting spending right up until those cuts would affect his/her own district.

[Willihammer]

As for Sanders' budget page on his campaign website, literally every item on his spending agenda would be paid for by raising a tax, creating a new tax, or eliminating a tax "loophole," as defined by him.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/

[Mike Sixel]

As opposed to the others, who will just cut taxes and raise spending?

 

I suggest looking at sites that compare budgets. They aren't pretty (none of them, none of them), but at least Sanders is trying to spend money on the people, not on the 1% only.

[Willihammer]

 

As opposed to the others, who will just cut taxes and raise spending?

 

I suggest looking at sites that compare budgets. They aren't pretty (none of them, none of them), but at least Sanders is trying to spend money on the people, not on the 1% only.

Here's a politico article article I found on google that says

 

"Sanders has not proposed even a rough military spending figure, but he has said he would take “a hard look” at defense. When asked in last week’s Democratic debate to name an area of government he’d be willing to cut, Sanders cited the Pentagon: “I have the feeling you’re going to find a lot of cost overruns there and a lot of waste and duplicative activities,” he said."

 

He might in fact cut military spending here and there but I dont' think he has any idea how big or small of an impact that would be on the budget.

[Craig Arko]

 

He might in fact cut military spending here and there but I dont' think he has any idea how big or small of an impact that would be on the budget.

I guess the obvious question is "Who then, does?"

 

And the follow-up "How can I use that information for voting guidance?"

[Mike Sixel]

 

Here's a politico article article I found on google that says

 

"Sanders has not proposed even a rough military spending figure, but he has said he would take “a hard look” at defense. When asked in last week’s Democratic debate to name an area of government he’d be willing to cut, Sanders cited the Pentagon: “I have the feeling you’re going to find a lot of cost overruns there and a lot of waste and duplicative activities,” he said."

 

He might in fact cut military spending here and there but I dont' think he has any idea how big or small of an impact that would be on the budget.

 

He's not running in a vacuum.....compare his plans to others, and see who cares about actually helping the world be a better place for everyone, not just the wealthy*

 

*I think I'm in the wealthy group, I don't get why people who aren't hate unions, hate education, and hate taxes on the wealthy who don't need this much money. I don't get it.

[Willihammer]

 

He's not running in a vacuum.....compare his plans to others, and see who cares about actually helping the world be a better place for everyone, not just the wealthy*

 

*I think I'm in the wealthy group, I don't get why people who aren't hate unions, hate education, and hate taxes on the wealthy who don't need this much money. I don't get it.

You made a claim that Sanders was financing his social programs, at least partially, through military cuts. All people needed to do was look at his budget. I'm not a big military guy so the idea of poaching from the military to fund other stuff is intriguing to me, but in my short time searching the Internet I have not been able to find much evidence of this. At best Sanders seems vague on the exact impact on his budget. If you have a source in mind that does a more thorough look at how Sanders will move costs around within the government, I'd be curious to see it.

[TheLeviathan]

I'd also be interested in hearing where Bernie said he would slash military spending.  I thought most of his promises were being funded by taxing Wall St.  

 

If that's something he's saying he's doing, I'd love to see some evidence of that.  I'm eagerly awaiting a candidate that will step into the fire of that issue and advocate defense slashing.