2016 Election Thread

[nicksaviking]

 

"Who hates Iowa"?!

 

Donald Trump the Republican on February 2nd, so sayeth my crystal ball.

 

On a related note, about a month later Donald Trump the Independent will say Iowan's are all terrorists anyway.

[mikecgrimes]

Still don't see how Hillary wins the Democrat nomination, clearly Bernie is a weak opponent compared to Obama, but Obama wasn't half the rock star he became at this stage.  Money may be the deciding factor but my theory is as the internet progresses and the post internet generation starts to vote in higher #'s money means less and less.

[DaveW]

 

Still don't see how Hillary wins the Democrat nomination, clearly Bernie is a weak opponent compared to Obama, but Obama wasn't half the rock star he became at this stage.  Money may be the deciding factor but my theory is as the internet progresses and the post internet generation starts to vote in higher #'s money means less and less.

Bernie isn't going to come close, the only people voting for him are the young generation and its proven time and time again the youngsters don't come out and vote.

 

Bernie is about 8-12 years too early, he is far too socialist to ever stand a chance in the general election.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Still don't see how Hillary wins the Democrat nomination, clearly Bernie is a weak opponent compared to Obama, but Obama wasn't half the rock star he became at this stage.  Money may be the deciding factor but my theory is as the internet progresses and the post internet generation starts to vote in higher #'s money means less and less.

You can't see a scenario where Hillary wins the Democratic nomination? 

[Shane Wahl]

 

I highlighted some of the thoughts I most wanted to respond to.  The first one is spot on.  People wonder why car sales and house sales are down....well you've basically deprived a generation of buying power until they are in their 30s and 40s.  We've pushed that whole picture of purchasing power back at least a decade.  It's having a tremendously negative effect on the economy as you rightly said.  

 

I would push back on the second point.  I think people not in education hear this sort of thing and think it's more relevant than it is.  Standardized tests are not that big of a deal.  There are too many stakes attached to them for sure, but the truth is some form of standardized assessment is a necessity.  We just have to stop attaching dollars to it and a number of other consequences to both schools and students.  But we are also teaching things sooner to kids now than they ever were previously.  The issue is more societal - what is truly important for a college student to know?  How do we teach that?

 

Don't kid yourself into thinking that universities have been dumbed down by necessity.  They've purposefully dumbed down the rigor of college.  They have softened the content, told teachers not to push back on students, encourage teachers to pass their students regardless of their performance.  The truth is, they realize they have to keep handing out degrees or people will stop dipping into the trough to hand them money.  This isn't a "we had to dumb down, kids just can't handle this", this was "the only way we can keep bringing in these escalating tuition costs is to embrace a lower quality student and ensure we never get a reputation that your money was wasted"

 

I mean, think about it: What do college invest all this money in?  Their assistant professors?  Higher quality teachers?  Or into big stadiums, fancy dorms, spiffy signs, and other cosmetic crap that makes it seem like a good investment?  This is almost entirely university driven in terms of the problem we have.

 

As for that last point, I was in the same boat so I appreciate the need to ahve money available to those with the ability and the need.  The problem is we have to tailor that available money in such a way that it doesn't encourage exploitation and misuse.

 

Handing all universities and students a federal subsidy is the exact opposite of that.  We have to go back, undo the Great Society model of stupidity, and start with something that makes both fiscal sense and allows us to maximize the intelligence and ability of our populace.

 

Lots of good stuff here. I will think of something to say in detail later!

[Shane Wahl]

Sanders will win fewer than 5 states. Perhaps one. Likely no more than three.

Clinton will trounce Cruz, Trump, or Carson (and most of the other clowns). Rubio and Bush are still the only two legitimate general election contenders.

[mikecgrimes]

 

You can't see a scenario where Hillary wins the Democratic nomination? 

 

Of course I can, I just don't think it's anywhere close to a sure thing.  The same things said about Bernie now were said about Obama 8 years ago.  National polls before the first states votes are counted mean less then nothing.  Democrats don't nominate flawed candidates because they don't have to.

[drjim]

Of course I can, I just don't think it's anywhere close to a sure thing. The same things said about Bernie now were said about Obama 8 years ago. National polls before the first states votes are counted mean less then nothing. Democrats don't nominate flawed candidates because they don't have to.

I'm not sure I would so easily compare Sanders and Obama.

 

For starters, Obama is an extremely talented and charismatic politician, maybe the best of my lifetime. Sanders is a cranky old dude.

 

He has policies that are attractive to politically engaged liberals and the press wants a story, but there is ultimately no there there.

 

Two states is my over/under for Sanders. He had a nice run, brought the party his direction on a few issues, and he'll bow out graciously soon enough.

[twinsnorth49]

Watching Trump interview on CNN..................you're kidding America.......right?

[USAFChief]

Still don't see how Hillary wins the Democrat nomination, clearly Bernie is a weak opponent compared to Obama, but Obama wasn't half the rock star he became at this stage.  Money may be the deciding factor but my theory is as the internet progresses and the post internet generation starts to vote in higher #'s money means less and less.

"Democratic."

 

The Democratic nomination.

 

For the Democratic Party.

[mikecgrimes]

 

"Democratic."

The Democratic nomination.

For the Democratic Party.

 

Is that what Democrats are going with?

[Shane Wahl]

I actually think Sanders has a fair bit of charisma. He is barely any different than Dennis Kucinich, but DK was never even getting more than 1% ever in the polls before the primaries.

 

Something really is happening in this country, and it is happening on both the "left" and the "right."

But the biggest difference between '08 and '16 for the Dems is that ethnic minorities are supporting Clinton, for whatever reason (or non-reason). There's no way around that.

(I would probably bet everyone here money that Michelle Obama has had discussions with her husband about endorsing Sanders, by the way)

[Squirrel]

I actually think Sanders has a fair bit of charisma. He is barely any different than Dennis Kucinich, but DK was never even getting more than 1% ever in the polls before the primaries.

 

Something really is happening in this country, and it is happening on both the "left" and the "right."

But the biggest difference between '08 and '16 for the Dems is that ethnic minorities are supporting Clinton, for whatever reason (or non-reason). There's no way around that.

(I would probably bet everyone here money that Michelle Obama has had discussions with her husband about endorsing Sanders, by the way)

Why do you think that about Michelle Obama? The president won't endorse any of the candidates until a nominee has been selected. He wouldn't even have officially been able to support Biden if Biden had chosen to run.

 

And Kucinich and Sanders are not at all alike. Kucinich has been a member of the Democratic Party and has been a Democrat for his entire career, I believe; Bernie hasn't. Bernie became a member of the Democratic Party in 2015 when he decided to run for President. He calls himself a Socialist Democrat seeking the Democratic nomination. He has never been a supporter of the party, yet seeks for the party to support him rather than run as a Socialist. While Kucinich is a liberal Democrat, and some of their stances are similar, I'd say Bernie is 'further left' on the spectrum. And Kucinich's problem in generating support was that he had little effective charisma. (I always liked Kacinich, btw. And I don't dislike Sanders, either, btw.)

 

As for ethnic minorities supporting Hillary, maybe it has nothing to do with her stances. I think they just relate to her better?

[TheLeviathan]

Gusty and necessary stand on guns by Obama.  Someone, at some point, was going to have to stand up and risk the blowback.  

 

In a country where even Bernie Sanders is somewhat protective of the gun lobby/gun rights, we need someone and some party to stand up and push back.

[Squirrel]

Gusty and necessary stand on guns by Obama. Someone, at some point, was going to have to stand up and risk the blowback.

 

In a country where even Bernie Sanders is somewhat protective of the gun lobby/gun rights, we need someone and some party to stand up and push back.

And Congress is going to debate censuring him. Sigh.

[Shane Wahl]

 

Why do you think that about Michelle Obama? The president won't endorse any of the candidates until a nominee has been selected. He wouldn't even have officially been able to support Biden if Biden had chosen to run.

And Kucinich and Sanders are not at all alike. Kucinich has been a member of the Democratic Party and has been a Democrat for his entire career, I believe; Bernie hasn't. Bernie became a member of the Democratic Party in 2015 when he decided to run for President. He calls himself a Socialist Democrat seeking the Democratic nomination. He has never been a supporter of the party, yet seeks for the party to support him rather than run as a Socialist. While Kucinich is a liberal Democrat, and some of their stances are similar, I'd say Bernie is 'further left' on the spectrum. And Kucinich's problem in generating support was that he had little effective charisma. (I always liked Kacinich, btw. And I don't dislike Sanders, either, btw.)

As for ethnic minorities supporting Hillary, maybe it has nothing to do with her stances. I think they just relate to her better?

 

Yeah I don't mean actually endorsing him, but more so in the "don't you wish you could, really?" Michelle has no love lost for the Clintons, and Michelle is quite liberal.

Kucinich is actually almost identical to Sanders. Actually, Kucinich is more consistently anti-war and resistant to certain pro-Israeli government propaganda.

Ultimately the party name doesn't really matter. Sanders could be more successful as an "Independent" in a place like Vermont than Kucinich could in Ohio.

I don't understand how ethnic minorities could "relate to" Hillary Clinton better.

[Squirrel]

Yeah I don't mean actually endorsing him, but more so in the "don't you wish you could, really?" Michelle has no love lost for the Clintons, and Michelle is quite liberal.

Kucinich is actually almost identical to Sanders. Actually, Kucinich is more consistently anti-war and resistant to certain pro-Israeli government propaganda.

Ultimately the party name doesn't really matter. Sanders could be more successful as an "Independent" in a place like Vermont than Kucinich could in Ohio.

I don't understand how ethnic minorities could "relate to" Hillary Clinton better.

I already said that their stances were similar, but Kucinich couldn't garner national support because he lacked the energy and charisma to do so. He and Bernis are very different candidates on that front.

 

And Bernie lost in Vermont early on running as a Socialist. That's why he became an Independent and ran with that affiliation. And, for better or worse, the party affiliation does matter on a national scale. He can't win the presidency as an independent or as a socialist and he knows it. He also knows doing so would split the liberal vote guaranteeing a Republican win. If he could win, why the need to switch party affiliation and then announce you plan to seek that party's nomination? Please, it was an opportunistic move for him. He can't win without the support of the Democratic Party.

 

The same reason I can relate to Hillary. Think about it. How hard have you had to fight for equality in your life? I've been fighting for it my entire life.

[mikecgrimes]

Forget the parties in this country we have two ballot lines worth going after.  If it was just the popular vote someone like Trump might be able to pull it off running 3rd ballot line but with the EC it's not going to happen unless it is well known going into the election one of his opponents will finish 3rd, and even then if a big state or 2 are picked off by the 3rd place finisher it wouldn't happen.  This is why I always say the election happens at caucuses/primaries and if you choose not to participate at that point you're I voted sticker in November offends me because you didn't. 

 

I hear way to many people already talking about Clinton versus Trump, when the reality is those two have a lot of work to do before that's anything more then an educated guess.  Turnout is typically so low that the dynamic of Trump could turn things in any direction for both parties.  In 2012 if 1.5% of the Iowa population caucused as Republicans for Kermit the Frog he would have blown out Santorum and Romney. 

[USAFChief]

I have no idea who the Republicans will nominate.

 

But that person will be running against Hillary Clinton, barring a serious health incident. That much is a stone cold lock.

[mikecgrimes]

Looking at the betting sites Clinton is a heavy favorite, but nowhere near a lock.  How much of 2008 was Obama and how much was Clinton?  Beyond that turnout, turnout, turnout.  It's so easy to flip this process, if Trump wins big in Iowa, and wins again big in the first race after some major candidates drop out would you put it past him to tell his supporters to make sure Bernie or even Martin O' Malley beat Hillary?  Obama didn't need to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and as we stand today it would be no shock at all if Bernie won both.  Planning on winning later works for some candidates, but I don't think Hillary Clinton is that kind of candidate, 2008 proved that.

[Shane Wahl]

Serious shifts toward Bernie would have to occur in minority support. That is the big difference between 2008 and now.

[mikecgrimes]

Serious shifts toward Bernie would have to occur in minority support. That is the big difference between 2008 and now.

Turnout is a far more important factor. In any event given the new polls today and the constant reminder of how 2008 played out I am now very confident saying hillary will not win the nomination.

[nicksaviking]

Fair or not, Hilary will win the Dem votes for two exclusively non-political reasons:

 

A ) Most voters already know she is extremely likely to beat anyone the Republicans nominate but few are as confident with Sanders, and keeping the presidency away from the Republicans is more important to many of these voters than getting their first choice in office.

 

B ) Super unfair, but Bernie is 74 and looks 80. Hillary is 68 and looks 58. Bernie is healthy for all I know, and Hillary did have health concerns awhile back, but his apparent age is going to be a big draw back for him. Someone said his policies are about 12 years too early and I agree. Unfortunately his age is about 12 years too late.

 

And we have to face it, there is a gigantic bloc of voters who know jack squat about politicians and what they actually stand for.

 

Also, doesn't both of the top two contenders getting up there in age pretty strongly suggest that a younger guy will be the running mate? Is O'Malley a shoe in to be on the ticket?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Fair or not, Hilary will win the Dem votes for two exclusively non-political reasons:

 

A ) Most voters already know she is extremely likely to beat anyone the Republicans nominate but few are as confident with Sanders, and keeping the presidency away from the Republicans is more important to many of these voters than getting their first choice in office.

 

B ) Super unfair, but Bernie is 74 and looks 80. Hillary is 68 and looks 58. Bernie is healthy for all I know, and Hillary did have health concerns awhile back, but his apparent age is going to be a big draw back for him. Someone said his policies are about 12 years too early and I agree. Unfortunately his age is about 12 years too late.

 

And we have to face it, there is a gigantic bloc of voters who know jack squat about politicians and what they actually stand for.

 

Also, doesn't both of the top two contenders getting up there in age pretty strongly suggest that a younger guy will be the running mate? Is O'Malley a shoe in for this, or is he even too old?

 

I liked this, but I'd rather have pushed an "agree" button.....

[PseudoSABR]

Rightly or wrongly, identity politics worked in Obama's favor, in spite of his rather center-left policies.  Identity politics work against Bernie, in spite of his far left policies--and work in Hillary's favor.  We can poo-poo the idea of the first woman president on a sports message board overwhelmingly comprised of men, but within the actual political landscape, Hillary-as-woman is more transformative than Bernie-as-socialist.  

[mikecgrimes]

 

Fair or not, Hilary will win the Dem votes for two exclusively non-political reasons:

 

A ) Most voters already know she is extremely likely to beat anyone the Republicans nominate but few are as confident with Sanders, and keeping the presidency away from the Republicans is more important to many of these voters than getting their first choice in office.

 

 

Current polls don't agree with this statement.  Now if I really think about it I'd say Hillary has a slightly better shot then Bernie come November, but it's so close in my mind it wouldn't be a factor in my vote if I was a Democrat.  Either we will have a climate where a Democrat can win or we won't, the candidate Republicans choose will be a factor but Trump throws a wildcard into that where it's not just about the moderate to conservative spectrum so going into Iowa you can't really use that as a deciding factor either.  Assuming nothing unexpected happens in New Hampshire and Bernie wins big I think Iowa will probably decide this thing. 

 

As for the age thing clearly Bernie looks older, but he's also a man so his age might be less of a factor.  On her worst days Clinton looks bad and she has a tough time avoiding having a worst day pop up here and there.  While I understand these are all predictions I find it comical the people who think Clinton will win won't call their statement a prediction.

[nicksaviking]

No way the polls are an accurate reflection of anything at this point. Republican voters know Trump could never win and while some (many?) say they like him now, he won't get the votes when it counts because he can't win, same thing will happen with Sanders.

 

I feel pretty comfortable predicting that a social conservative will never win the White House again, at least if our culture remains anything close to what it is today. A fiscal conservative could win but the party will need to divorce itself from the idea that all candidates have to be both. Fair or not, the public now ties social conservatives to bigotry, stubbornness, ethnocentrism and fear of change. People overwhelmingly do not want to be tied to those labels anymore and again, fair or not social media is making sure those that do are pariahs.

[Squirrel]

 

Rightly or wrongly, identity politics worked in Obama's favor, in spite of his rather center-left policies.  Identity politics work against Bernie, in spite of his far left policies--and work in Hillary's favor.  We can poo-poo the idea of the first woman president on a sports message board overwhelmingly comprised of men, but within the actual political landscape, Hillary-as-woman is more transformative than Bernie-as-socialist.  

This was sort of my point with minorities supporting Hillary. They can relate to her experience as a woman better than any white male. And I'm not trying to throw the race card in or disparage white males, but there is something to say in identity voting, as you suggest.

[mikecgrimes]

 

No way the polls are an accurate reflection of anything at this point. Republican voters know Trump could never win

 

I think in a lot of ways he's flawed, but his flaws are also advantages depending on who turns out.  I can't honestly say he would be the least likely to win despite the fact I would like to.  The key is who didn't turnout in 08 and can Trump get them to turnout.  I do feel that if Trump is the nominee we will have record turnout.  If it's Clinton versus Bush Kasich or Christie I think turnout will decline significantly.  I'd bet on Trump losing but it's such a crazy dynamic that I also wouldn't be shocked if Trump won big.

 

I think the left projects what the left thinks about Republicans to much on everyone else.  Of course a large segment of the public finds Republicans as bigots, but Republicans also win about half the elections in this country so either the American people sort of like bigots, or they don't consider Republicans to be bigots.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

This was sort of my point with minorities supporting Hillary. They can relate to her experience as a woman better than any white male. And I'm not trying to throw the race card in or disparage white males, but there is something to say in identity voting, as you suggest.

 

I agree, but not to the extent that I don't expect minority turnout to drop significantly, you don't win elections by winning the support of the people that don't bother to vote.  I hate to use this word as often as I do, but it's what decides all elections especially primaries and caucuses but it's all about turnout.  Speaking of which special primary election tomorrow in the Anoka Andover Coon Rapids area. Guess what will decide that one?