Printable version of thread
Click here to view this topic in its original format
BuzzJack Music Forum _ News and Politics _ 2016 US Election.
Posted by: Common Sense 7th November 2012, 04:53 PM
I'm very interested in this so hope this thread isn't locked.
Do you think Hillary Clinton will stand despite her saying that she's retiring from politics? Do you think she should stand as she'll be 69 then but so was Reagan when he was elected!
I'm going to predict that she'll become the first woman President in exactly 4 years' time. I'd love a Clinton-Palin contest but Palin will never get the Republican nomination. Can't see VP Biden standing as he'll be too old.
Posted by: 152chris 7th November 2012, 05:29 PM
Clinton-Palin would actually be the most fun election ever (providing we get an absolute Clinton landslide)
Posted by: Conderella 7th November 2012, 06:56 PM
PALIN YES PLZ. Anyone but that Bachmann cunt.
Posted by: Common Sense 7th November 2012, 07:16 PM
You really think Palin is fit for President?
Mind you she's good at Foreign policy, could even see Russia from her bedroom window. 
Posted by: ▲▲▲ 7th November 2012, 07:27 PM
Benghazi.
Posted by: Conderella 7th November 2012, 07:32 PM
Mind you she's good at Foreign policy, could even see Russia from her bedroom window. I'm saying she would be fun to watch as a presidential candidate (even if just for all animated TV shows that will be making CONSTANT fun of her).
Posted by: Brett-J 7th November 2012, 08:30 PM
Mind you she's good at Foreign policy, could even see Russia from her bedroom window. She never actually said that. That misquote comes from the episode of Saturday Night Live that aired just after her vice-Presidency was nominated.
And anyway, I can't see the Republicans giving her the nod for the Presidency. Whilst she is surprisingly popular amongst the average American (or at least was when I was in America), she would get absolutely destroyed in the debates. I imagine it'll be someone like Jeb Bush or Chris Christie for the Republicans. For the Democrats, it seems a little less clear cut who they'll chose, but I can't see it being Hilary Clinton.
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th November 2012, 09:19 PM
My gut feeling at the moment is that Hillary Clinton will go for it but only if she is very confident of winning. The assumption four years ago was that Biden wouldn't stand in 2016 but there seem to be a lot of people now saying he might.
As for the Republicans, it depends on whether they continue to occupy Planet La-La or return to Planet Earth. Chris Christie is being portrayed as a moderate who may appeal to swing voters (unless they decide he's a heart attack waiting to happen). However, with the Republican party as it is he would have to move well to the right to have a chance of winning the nomination. However, if the Republicans come to their senses they might realise they need a more moderate candidate. After all, they have only won the popular vote in a Presidential election once since 1988.
Of course there's a fair chance one or both candidates will be people most of us have never heard of at the moment.
Posted by: Common Sense 7th November 2012, 10:15 PM
Do you mean you don't think she'll stand or she wouldn't win the nominaton? I think she'd certainly get the nomination if she stood!
Posted by: ¿ CHARLIE ? 8th November 2012, 05:03 PM
Chris Christie or Marco Rubio would be worryingly promising candidates as far as Republicans go - the former obviously had it in mind when he praised Obama for how he dealt with Sandy and the latter would earn a lot more ethnic minority votes that cost them so dearly this time.
I'd be happy to see Paul Ryan get the nod though, I can't see him being a threat although he's slick enough and batshit terrible enough to get the nomination.
Posted by: Cal 8th November 2012, 05:43 PM
I think Andrew Cuomo would be a worthwhile candidate for the Democrats (if Biden or Clinton weren't running). I wouldn't be surprised if John Thune got the Republican nomination because I think he was nearly Romney's running mate?
Also, I see Puerto Rico have voted to become part of the United States. I don't have any knowledge in relation to Puerto Rico so I have no idea if they'd be Democrat or Republican. I'd imagine they'd go Blue?
Posted by: Common Sense 8th November 2012, 06:13 PM
It would be interesting if Biden and Clinton both decide to stand! I heard someone on Sky News say that he thinks Biden WILL stand. Apparently he's dropped a few hints privately. 
The VP has no automatic right to the Nomination and they could go for Clinton or someone else, thinking that Biden's just too old to complete two possible full terms. 
That's assuming Biden doesn't ascend to the Presidency before 2016 and I'm sure n one of us wish that to happen.
Posted by: Suedehead2 8th November 2012, 06:30 PM
The VP has no automatic right to the Nomination and they could go for Clinton or someone else, thinking that Biden's just too old to complete two possible full terms. That's assuming Biden doesn't ascend to the Presidency before 2016 and I'm sure n one of us wish that to happen.The president has no right to the nomination. Jimmy Carter was challenged in 1980.
Posted by: Common Sense 8th November 2012, 07:48 PM
Yes I know that. Just as a matter of interest, do you know who challenged him, without looking it up? I do.
Posted by: Suedehead2 8th November 2012, 07:58 PM
I think it was Teddy Kennedy.
Posted by: Sinner 8th November 2012, 08:29 PM
I started following Palin on twitter for the lols.
Posted by: Common Sense 9th November 2012, 09:49 AM
Correct.
Posted by: Conderella 9th November 2012, 09:56 AM
Good job you're so smart omg etc.
Posted by: Common Sense 9th November 2012, 09:57 AM
I don't understand Twitter at all. I just Tweeted Sarah Palin and told her she should run next time but can't see my Tweet. Shouldn't it be top of the Tweets on the right hand side of her Tweets page? Help!
Posted by: ¿ CHARLIE ? 9th November 2012, 12:35 PM
No, only her own tweets and stuff she retweets are on her profile. She'll have been notified that you tweeted her, though.
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th November 2012, 02:39 PM
One US newspaper is speculating on the prospect of another Clinton v Bush contest, Hillary v Jeb (the man who fiddled Florida 2000 for his dimmer brother).
Posted by: ¿ CHARLIE ? 9th November 2012, 03:17 PM
In a way it'd be a shame if the Democrat nomination went to Clinton or Biden (although the latter is unlikely) given it'd be a bit of a retrograde step. I'm not well up enough on their younger generation to suggest an alternative, though. If they were going to go for someone older I'd love it to be Gore but there's more chance of Obama invading Canada.
Posted by: Common Sense 9th November 2012, 05:32 PM
Oh thanks, so only she can see my Tweet! I always thought they all went public immediately.
Posted by: Conderella 9th November 2012, 06:23 PM
No, not only her. Her and all your followers. It's like facebook, only your 'private' messages can be seen by your own (and the other person you're @ing) followers.
Posted by: pooh dollaz 13th November 2012, 02:26 PM
We not ready for a female president.
Posted by: Common Sense 13th November 2012, 03:53 PM
Why ever not? Even one as qualified and with the experience of Hillary?
Posted by: Oliver 15th November 2012, 08:01 PM
WE don't have a choice in the matter.
Posted by: musicjr 23rd April 2013, 05:07 AM
Palin is definitely NOT fit for president. If Palin were president, I do not know what I would do........
Posted by: Common Sense 23rd April 2013, 08:30 AM
You do realise that your comment in brackets was libelous Suedy?
Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd April 2013, 09:35 AM
True statements cannot be libellous.
Posted by: Harve 23rd April 2013, 09:45 AM
Why is it that someone can't serve more than two terms? EH.
Posted by: ¿ LA SOMBRA ? 23rd April 2013, 11:48 AM
FDR did three and a bit before the 22nd Amendment came in. I can't see it being changed again, and I understand that for a position with the power of the Presidency it'd be pushing it a bit democratically to let them stay as long as they can.
Of course there's the question of whether Obama would be more electable that someone else anyway.
Posted by: Silas 23rd April 2013, 12:09 PM
I think as non-American's who live outside of the United States the prospect of more Obama is highly pleasing to us as he's the most, EuroFriendly president they've had. Especially when we sit and look at the prospect of someone like Palin, who makes us worry for the future safety of humanity. I still can't fathom the American's hatred of Healthcare reforms that Obama introduced that would allow more access to healthcare for the worst off, they seem to want to cling on to the developed worlds worst system for provision of healthcare. I'm sure they have really wonderful hospitals and staff, if you can afford it....
Posted by: ¿ LA SOMBRA ? 23rd April 2013, 12:18 PM
I love the idea that the best place to get free healthcare from the US is Guantanamo Bay.
Posted by: Kanduälska 23rd April 2013, 02:32 PM
HILDOG HILDOG HILDOG HILDOG
Posted by: Brett-Butler 23rd April 2013, 03:48 PM
I got a sore throat when I was in America, it cost me $105 in all - $80 for the doctor, $25 for the medication. Medical care is one of the reasons why despite my love of America, I couldn't live there permanently.
And there's no way that the Republicans would allow Sarah Palin to get the nod for the presidential race. She might be reasonably popular with certain Americans, but even the Republicans aren't silly enough to let her run, she'd be annihilated in the debates.
Posted by: Danny 23rd April 2013, 04:20 PM
Palin's time has passed now....even Fox News have had enough of her and 'let her go' from the "punditry" she was supposedly providing for them. The Republicans do seem to finally be moving away from the lunatic fringe, so it will probably be someone like Chris Christie for them next time.
Obviously Hillary is the big favourite at this point, BUT I read somewhere that, in US elections where the incumbent isn't running, the initial favourite hasn't actually gone on to win once in the last 30 years or something, so....
I wouldn't be completely shocked to see Biden go for it... if the Obama administration is still popular in 3 years then there might be the demand for a continuity candidate.
Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd April 2013, 04:30 PM
Obviously Hillary is the big favourite at this point, BUT I read somewhere that, in US elections where the incumbent isn't running, the initial favourite hasn't actually gone on to win for the last 30 years or something, so....
That only covers three elections though so it's not exactly a massive trend. Hillary Clinton currently has the advantage that she is far better known to the American public than any other potential contender apart from Joe Biden. That is bound to affect the odds quoted by the bookies.
Posted by: Common Sense 23rd April 2013, 05:33 PM
It would be interesting if Biden decides to run and Hillary challenges him for the Nomination. I think she'd get it.
Posted by: Kanduälska 23rd April 2013, 05:52 PM
I think it'd be more a case of Hilary deciding to run and Biden challenging her given how much of a front-runner she is!
Posted by: Jark 24th April 2013, 08:44 AM
I absolutely adore Hillary. Aside from the slight niggle of her age she's the perfect candidate. It's about bloody time we had a woman President.
Posted by: Common Sense 24th April 2013, 09:12 AM
Agreed. Hope she stands and wins. She was looking very tired but she'll have had a rest with not flying around the world as Secretary Of State.
Posted by: Sandro Ranieri 28th May 2013, 10:22 AM
I think Clinton would be a shoe in for the Democratic nomination if she chose to stand, her recent health episode is a concern but she was an impressive secretary of state.
Republicans should persuade Condoleezza Rice to stand, that would be 2 former female secretary's of state, both incredibly sharp minds and intelligent women, Rice would help attract the black vote too which is something Romney failed miserably at.
Christie is a likeable guy but is a heart attack waiting to happen with his obesity, Jeb is intelligent but too allied with his idiot brother, Rubio i don't know enough about and Ryan while sharp minded failed miserably in 2012 on the Romney ticket.
Posted by: Common Sense 6th June 2013, 10:41 PM
Republicans should persuade Condoleezza Rice to stand, that would be 2 former female secretary's of state, both incredibly sharp minds and intelligent women, Rice would help attract the black vote too which is something Romney failed miserably at.
Christie is a likeable guy but is a heart attack waiting to happen with his obesity, Jeb is intelligent but too allied with his idiot brother, Rubio i don't know enough about and Ryan while sharp minded failed miserably in 2012 on the Romney ticket.
What about Joe Biden?
Posted by: Sandro Ranieri 6th June 2013, 10:44 PM
Too old
He will be like 73/74 when the next presidential election takes place.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th June 2013, 11:02 PM
When Biden was nominated as Obama's VP nominee my assumption was that he would not go for the presidency. He will be 74 shortly after the next presidential election, i.e. four years older than Reagan when he was first elected.
Hillary Clinton still seems the obvious choice. That could give the Democrats a significant advantage if they have their nomination sewn up well before the Republicans.
Posted by: Sandro Ranieri 6th June 2013, 11:08 PM
Hillary Clinton still seems the obvious choice. That could give the Democrats a significant advantage if they have their nomination sewn up well before the Republicans.
^ this
McCain was 73 when up against Obama in 2008 and he was nothing short of an embarrassment, his speeches were hesitant, he got his words mixed up and confused, he looked old and grey and tired on the campaign trail.
Biden will be even older than McCain was, he gets the nomination the GOP will walk it.
Posted by: FezVez 12th April 2015, 07:02 PM
Hillary's candidacy finally confirmed.
Still waiting on her social media announcement...
Posted by: Apricot 12th April 2015, 07:36 PM
Fantastic news about Hillary!
Posted by: Brett-Butler 12th April 2015, 07:39 PM
I think we all saw that coming a mile off. Not that she's going to be elected. I'm even sceptical that she'll even get the Democratic nomination.
Posted by: Danny 12th April 2015, 07:48 PM
Who do you think can beat her to the nomination? I hoped Elizabeth Warren would run, but apparently she's not going to.
I agree that she's unlikely to win the election itself though.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 12th April 2015, 08:13 PM
I agree that she's unlikely to win the election itself though.
I have a feeling that when the inevitable anti-Hillary backlash begins aplomb in a few weeks time, some rank outsider within the party will take advantage and will become a leading challenger. As to who'd be crazy enough to attempt to dethrone Hillary, the ones that spring to mind are Joe Biden and Andrew Cuomo.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 08:20 PM
I just can't see who the Republicans would realistically nominate who'd likely beat her. Scott Walker's the best they can manage, and well...let's just say he's not shattering Obama's coalition any time soon, let alone whoever Hillary's adding to it.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 08:28 PM
She already has a 60+% lead in the campaign. There's barely *anybody* who commands the kind of support within the Democratic Party who could come close to her name recognition, fundraising power and experience, outside of maybe Warren and Biden - and only Warren could come close to having something that could dent Hillary (namely, a vagina and liberal iconhood), at least until the machine that's behind Hillary geared up to pull her to pieces on her total lack of foreign policy interest or experience. Hillary's skeletons have been hyperanalysed for over two decades now. Basically, it's massively, massively, *massively* unlikely anything could get enough momentum to derail her unless it was found out that she shot the Libyan Ambassador herself. This is less Hillary in '08 so much as Gore in '00. Or Reagan in '80. There has never been such a prohibitive front-runner in the primaries in modern American history, short of presidents running for reselection.
Jim Webb is the only one running currently who'd have a coherent message separate from Hillary's that could get any traction. It won't.
Posted by: steve201 12th April 2015, 08:38 PM
So is there any chance the democrats can get in again?
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 08:50 PM
Well, a bit more than 'any chance'...
Posted by: Gage 12th April 2015, 08:59 PM
I'd be surprised if Hilary wasn't elected President come next November.
Posted by: FezVez 12th April 2015, 09:01 PM
Out of interest, to those who don't think she'll win the general - why so?
Posted by: Danny 12th April 2015, 09:09 PM
The "Obama coalition" relied on Obama -- Clinton isn't going to get anywhere near the turnout of black people that Obama got, for one. And even though another Democrat has potential to do better with the white working-class than Obama does, Clinton with her bland, pro-rich centrism is not really likely to do that.
Posted by: Danny 12th April 2015, 09:10 PM
She just doesn't really stand for anything at all, and isn't likely to excite or inspire people to anywhere near the extent Obama did.
Posted by: popchartfreak 12th April 2015, 09:16 PM
Clinton vs Bush the sequels?
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, well Bush is one up so Clinton could be the next one in the ongoing US political dynasties, where any millionaires' child can dream of becoming President one day.
I'll take Clinton over Bush anyday (the man who helped his brother into the white house, the one that cocked up the world bigtime), which would then leave Michelle Obama as the first black female president after Hilary.
Posted by: Suedehead2 12th April 2015, 09:32 PM
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama, Obama, well Bush is one up so Clinton could be the next one in the ongoing US political dynasties, where any millionaires' child can dream of becoming President one day.
I'll take Clinton over Bush anyday (the man who helped his brother into the white house, the one that cocked up the world bigtime), which would then leave Michelle Obama as the first black female president after Hilary.
Except that Bill Clinton was not a millionaire's child. As far as I know, neither was Hillary Rodham Clinton. Of course, Bill wasn't short of a bob or two by the time he ran for president.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 09:42 PM
She's virtually synonymous with dying on the altar of healthcare reform in the 90s. Hardly standing for nothing.
You're right that she won't excite black voters anywhere near as much as Obama did, but the Obama coalition was never just black voters - it also relied on women and young voters. She kind of has a historical appeal which'd get out a few of those, which is why Warren would be her only risk. Not to mention that a fair few Obama supporters feel pretty let down and realise that promising big isn't always worth it if you can't deliver - she's got a record of bipartisanship that a lot have reconciled themselves to.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 09:45 PM
Show me a single ex-Senator who isn't rich and I'll show you a failed person. Of course Hillary's rich. It's almost impossible not to be when your wealth of experience is enough to command six figure speaking fees.
Posted by: Danny 12th April 2015, 09:50 PM
You're right that she won't excite black voters anywhere near as much as Obama did, but the Obama coalition was never just black voters - it also relied on women and young voters. She kind of has a historical appeal which'd get out a few of those, which is why Warren would be her only risk. Not to mention that a fair few Obama supporters feel pretty let down and realise that promising big isn't always worth it if you can't deliver - she's got a record of bipartisanship that a lot have reconciled themselves to.
Women ok, but I doubt she's going to get young people out in anywhere near the same numbers. For groups that don't care about politics, you simply need to have something strong and distinctive to say to even get them to bother going out to vote.
I'm a bit confused by what you said about "who she'd add to the Obama coalition", because I genuinely can't see why anyone who didn't vote for Obama would vote for Hillary.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 09:56 PM
I'm a bit confused by what you said about "who she'd add to the Obama coalition", because I genuinely can't see why anyone who didn't vote for Obama would vote for Hillary.
Well, the Clinton states for one. Pains me as it does to say it, there are white, rural voters in the likes of Arkansas and West Virginia that are open to an economically populist 'on your side' message who just would not vote for a black man, full stop.
Posted by: Danny 12th April 2015, 10:01 PM
Definitely, but Clinton doesn't look like she's going to be giving an economically populist message, and tbh, even if she did, it would be undermined by Republican attacks that she was elitist and too rich and aloof from those poor people to understand what they're going through anyway. Admittedly that would also be a problem for Elizabeth Warren too, I'm not sure her over-academic way of presenting things would go down too well in those types of places.
John Edwards would've been what the Democrats needed had he not self-destructed.
Posted by: steve201 12th April 2015, 10:23 PM
It was a genuine question in not up to date at all with us politics and always found it hard to understand due to the lack of ideology!
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 10:25 PM
"Everyday Americans need a champion and I want to be that champion," she added.
Nah, she doesn't look like she's going to be giving an economically populist message at all.
Posted by: Suedehead2 12th April 2015, 10:28 PM
John Edwards would've been what the Democrats needed had he not self-destructed.
Are there any potential Republican candidates who are significantly less rich than Hillary Clinton? Certainly not Jeb Bush.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th April 2015, 10:31 PM
Scott Walker didn't go to university and he's going for the blue collar vote. He's the closest I think the Republicans could come to setting up a Gore-Bush rematch.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 13th April 2015, 01:00 AM
Me too.
Here's to Hillary - go get em!
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 13th April 2015, 01:06 AM
I'm a bit confused by what you said about "who she'd add to the Obama coalition", because I genuinely can't see why anyone who didn't vote for Obama would vote for Hillary.
You're saying the first female president, aligned with the first black president, doesn't hae history making appeal among the millenials??
Republicans are terrified of her, particularly because of the making history thing, like Barack's campaign.
Posted by: Red Blooded Man 13th April 2015, 06:04 AM
Here's to Hillary - go get em!
Hillary Clinton !!
Posted by: Common Sense 13th April 2015, 07:00 AM
I agree that she's unlikely to win the election itself though.
As a matter of interest why do you think she won't win? I think she will.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 13th April 2015, 03:48 PM
In other election news, a http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/04/13/large-pile-of-cash-announces-us-presidency-bid/has just announced its election bid.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 13th April 2015, 04:43 PM
I think she will too.
But she's always had these comments, including comments like 'a woman will never be president - but I remember the same people saying this was saying Barack would never be president.
However, there are crazies who were saying pre-2008 saying that 'either a woman or black man president will be the anti-christ' lool. Well, I guess it HAS been a shock to patriarchal systems, having people who aren't white middle class men as candidates :ooo
Posted by: Danny 13th April 2015, 05:10 PM
I'm not sure. Obama had an extra dimension because the US had such a history of racism in the recent past, which made it all the more groundbreaking/remarkable -- I'm not sure a woman president would be seen as such a great groundbreaking move that would in itself be enough to make people enthusiastic about Hillary. It certainly wasn't seen as that in Hillary's 2008 campaign, anyway, the argument was all about her "experience" rather than because she'd be making history as the first female president.
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 13th April 2015, 05:16 PM
Well, it was a challenge between first female president v first black president, so it seemed smaller. There's no such challenge this time in primaries or the contest, especially as awful Jeb Bush (who got his bro into the WH the first time, talk aboot nepotism) will likely be the eventual opposite candidate.
Posted by: popchartfreak 13th April 2015, 06:11 PM
yes I was just being cynical, as usual
, to make a point about political dynasties in the land of the free where the best rise to the top purely because they are the most able and not through nepotism - though it's a fact you tend to be a millionaire to be president, can't recall the last one who wasn't rich....if there ever has been one who wasn't rich. Anyone know?To be powerful in life, money helps...
Posted by: Qassändra 13th April 2015, 06:36 PM
Well generally to run a presidential election in a country as huge and media-saturated as the US, money helps.
Posted by: Common Sense 14th April 2015, 03:43 PM
Marco Rubio, 42, son of a Cuban immigrant, enters the race for the Republicans. Some say he hasn't enough experience and is rather young.
Posted by: Qassändra 14th April 2015, 03:51 PM
Experience is the least of my concerns about Marco Rubio. I don't think there's a single position Craig would disagree with him on.
Posted by: Common Sense 21st April 2015, 01:48 PM
First Clinton gaffe of the campaign. She said that all her grandparents were immigrants. Wrong. Only one was born outside the US.
Posted by: Qassändra 21st April 2015, 02:03 PM
Oh no! Guess she's gonna lose to some nutcase now!!!
Posted by: Danny 21st April 2015, 04:27 PM
Hillary Clinton coming out with more left-wing rhetoric than "Red Ed" would ever dare to:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/report-hillary-clinton-called-for-toppling-the-1-2015-4?r=US
Posted by: #BJSCSLAYERRRRRR 21st April 2015, 05:04 PM
Posted by: Umi 17th June 2015, 06:13 PM
Surprised at the lack of reaction to Donald Trump announcing his bid for presidency. Even as someone who almost wanted Sarah Palin to run because "it'll be funny", I am not feeling anything good about this.
Considering he's basically Jesus 2 to Republicans and Hilary's campaign seems really blah so far... how big a factor can he be?
Posted by: J▼hnkm 17th June 2015, 06:53 PM
I did read several commentators speculating about him being as much of ''reality star'' to most people as anything else, which makes sense and can surely only hurt his chances. I did quite like his announcement though, which essentially amounted to: I'm a f***ING BILLIONAIRE and that means I am smarter and better than everyone else. VOTE4ME.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 17th June 2015, 07:01 PM
Considering he's basically Jesus 2 to Republicans and Hilary's campaign seems really blah so far... how big a factor can he be?
No factor at all. He's only "running", just like he has since every election cycle since 1988, to promote some sort of TV show or product, which will become clear over the next few weeks. The only reason he appears to be taking it more serious on this occasion is because he's cried wolf so many times before that he needs to make it look like he wants to this time around. I give it 2 months before he withdraws.
Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th June 2015, 10:16 PM
His candidacy is about as serious as his wig er, hair. That's DAMN serious by the way.
Posted by: Common Sense 21st June 2015, 03:42 PM
So Jeb Bush has announced that he's running. He could well get the Republican nomination and be a formidable opponent for Clinton. Some US commentators think his surname will handicap him though. Could we see a third President Bush?
Posted by: Brett-Butler 21st June 2015, 06:41 PM
Jeb Bush does have a lot of things going from him. He's seen as one of the more 'moderate' Republicans, his more concessionary stance towards immigration could help him win over Hispanic voters, which have historically plumped for the Democrats for a wider margin (plus his wife is Hispanic), and as a good old Catholic, he doesn't have the same evangelical zeal that many find off-putting about other runners. The one thing that he does have against him is a big one - he's a Bush. I notice that in his launch video he shied away from using his surname as much as possible, as although (remarkably) George W's reputation has recovered somewhat amongst Americans since he left office, the brand is still somewhat toxic.
Whatever happens though, I can't imagine that this is going to be another Bush vs Clinton campaign in 2016.
Posted by: Danny 26th June 2015, 02:23 PM
Growing signs that Hillary Clinton is in trouble.
New poll for the Democrats' New Hampshire primary:
Hillary Clinton 43%
Bernie Sanders 35%
Apparently, she is in a worse position than she was at this point in 2007 against Obama.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/25/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-new-hampshire-democrats-poll
Posted by: Qassändra 26th June 2015, 02:51 PM
Let's be real though, there's no actual chance of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He'll come within a few points of winning a primary or a caucus, there'll be a big old media storm, they'll whack out people like Warren to campaign for her, she'll smash the rest of it. Even Reagan had a stumble as the prohibitive favourite in 1980.
She's also not in a worse position - basically *everybody* in the Democratic senate caucus, most congressmen and most governors have already endorsed Hillary, which is pretty much unprecedented at this stage. Obama was able to get the momentum he did partly because there were a lot of higher ups in the Democrats who were wary of Hillary and thought he was better, so she never really had the full backing of the party establishment in a way she does now.
Posted by: Danny 26th June 2015, 03:31 PM
I agree Hillary will win the nomination, but I could see Sanders taking a few primariies. In the US, like everywhere, there's a feeling that the centre-left leaders need to grow some balls and finally take a tough stance on the super-rich and big businesses, rather than continue to endlessly give in to the Right.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th June 2015, 03:46 PM
Which, ironically enough, is exactly what Hillary has been pivoting towards for the last couple of months. Honestly, it's like trying to herd cats.
Posted by: Danny 26th June 2015, 03:51 PM
Not really, she's just done what Miliband did: thrown out some woolly talk about how bad inequality is, without having the nerve to suggest anything that would combat it. But a strong challenge in the primaries might hopefully force her hand.
Posted by: Common Sense 26th June 2015, 04:03 PM
Has Joe Biden given any indication yet as to whether he may stand? Just wondering if I've missed it. Don't think he'd beat Hillary to the nomination though.
Posted by: Suedehead2 26th June 2015, 04:35 PM
I'm not aware of any announcement from him so far. There seems to be a general assumption that he won't contest the nomination, but he hasn't confirmed that.
Posted by: steve201 27th June 2015, 09:52 PM
She has also shown in the past she can be easily bought by the health lobbies!
Posted by: Danny 4th August 2015, 10:13 PM
Increasing speculation that Joe Biden will throw his hat in the ring, as Hillary's ratings go into freefall.
Poll last week showed that in match-ups with the Republicans, Hillary would do only slightly better than the "unelectable" Bernie Sanders, and only equally or in some cases slightly worse than Biden would do.
Posted by: Qassändra 4th August 2015, 10:44 PM
Hillary's ratings have only really fallen among independents though - she still has a prohibitive 85% approval rating among Democrats and fundraising that's beating even Obama's at this stage in 2007. The longer Joe leaves it, the even more less likely it'll be for him to put up a fight. He's a back-up candidate should the worst happen to Hillary at best really.
Posted by: Danny 4th August 2015, 10:59 PM
But what's 'the worst'? Being unable to win the presidential election if she's the nominee? Because she's heading rapidly to that place.
Also, one of the more significant things about Hillary's ratings is she's falling particularly badly with white voters (while holding up well with ethnic minorities). Unfortunately for her, the first two primary states are overwhelmingly white, so defeats in one or both of them are now distinct possibilities.
Posted by: Qassändra 4th August 2015, 11:41 PM
The worst - a particular scandal or wound that immediately crashes her status as a frontrunner or competitive in the election (if someone wanted to, they could make a statement about what that collapse in the polls has coincided with in terms of Hillary's positioning. I won't, because I think it can win, but I will say that it's proof that the position *in and of itself* isn't some kind of electoral manna from the heavens).
On the subject of white people - it's pretty much priced in at this point that as the two states which are simultaneously the whitest and most liberal, if Sanders wins anywhere it'll be Iowa and/or New Hampshire, but it'll take remarkable competitiveness on his part to win in any/many other states. It's also worth bearing in mind that Obama lost big with white people in 2008 and 2012, so Hillary only has to lose by narrowly less to offset the inevitably slightly smaller BAME turnout (her margins over a generic Republican amongst BAME voters are pretty much identical to what Obama's were, so unless the Republicans nominate Rubio it shouldn't be an issue).
Posted by: Danny 5th August 2015, 02:28 PM
On the subject of white people - it's pretty much priced in at this point that as the two states which are simultaneously the whitest and most liberal, if Sanders wins anywhere it'll be Iowa and/or New Hampshire, but it'll take remarkable competitiveness on his part to win in any/many other states. It's also worth bearing in mind that Obama lost big with white people in 2008 and 2012, so Hillary only has to lose by narrowly less to offset the inevitably slightly smaller BAME turnout (her margins over a generic Republican amongst BAME voters are pretty much identical to what Obama's were, so unless the Republicans nominate Rubio it shouldn't be an issue).
Lol, well anyone who made that argument would have to explain why a candidate well to her left performs almost as well in polls against Republicans
Although on second thoughts, it might've damaged her in that her pushing stances which go directly against everything she's stood for to date makes her seem more cynical and inauthentic than ever.
Posted by: Qassändra 5th August 2015, 05:37 PM
OT: *.*
Posted by: LexC 5th August 2015, 06:38 PM
I have been living for Donald Trump's campaign these past few months, if only for the troubling glimpse into the future of the British Left it's offering me with a myriad of 'that's a wrong statistic' type delusions.
Also I reserve the right to descend into endless gay exaggeration if Hillary gets the Democrat nomination (and I don't think I'll be alone in that).
Posted by: Soy Adrián 6th August 2015, 12:29 PM
I'm a little envious of Americans since the Sanders campaign seems to be a lot more fun than the Corbyn one. Maybe because it's taking place exclusively on Reddit.
Posted by: Qassändra 6th August 2015, 07:23 PM
Also I imagine there are fewer accusations that Hillary supporters are basically just Republicans. Bu then, I imagine Bernie literally not being a Democrat wards that off.
Posted by: Danny 7th August 2015, 02:44 PM
It might also be because Hillary, as uninspiring as she/her campaign is, is atleast not literally parrotting word-for-word Republican arguments on the economy, welfare, businesses, tax, etc.
Posted by: Qassändra 7th August 2015, 02:59 PM
I don't think a Conservative ever made the argument that debt interest is better spent on education and health rather than tax cuts, but anyway.
-x-
Carly Fiorina was apparently really good in the Rejects Debate (Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal et al) last night - she won the snap poll with *83%* (second place got 7%!). She did really well in the post-debate interview with Chris Matthews too - taking down Hillary without looking frothing-mouthed as Republicans tend to. (I can't post it as I'm on my phone - can someone else do the honours?)
I doubt she'll get the nomination because, well, she's a woman in the Republican Party, but I imagine she'll have a big jump soon.
Posted by: steve201 9th August 2015, 11:41 AM
Marco Rubio will be the candidate if the republicans have any sense or want the presidency but they may not want it yet, I'd fear them if they picked him!
Posted by: 『bré』 9th August 2015, 03:43 PM
I took a survey thing on which US presidential candidates I side with the most the other day ( http://www.isidewith.com/ ) and Marco Rubio was dead last with 3% (tied with Rick Santorum). Welp.
Bernie Sanders 93%, Hillary Clinton 90%, Martin O'Malley 70% then the highest Republican was Rand Paul with a whopping 41%. Followed slightly surprisingly by Mike Huckabee at 31%, I thought he was one of the more lunatic-y of the Republican lunatics. And 19% for Donald Trump.
There is my intellectual as ever contribution to this forum ~
I actually did watch the whole Fox News debate out of interest mainly in Trump, and John Kasich seemed like the most reasonable of them all, if only for the fact he doesn't seem to entirely hate the gays. Figures that the most reasonable candidate was the one who only barely scraped into the top 10.
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th August 2015, 06:24 PM
I got a 98% match with Bernie Sanders, 93% with Hillary Clinton. This highest score for a Republican was John Kasich on 41%. Trump scored 11%, Ted Cruz a very impressive zero.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th August 2015, 08:19 PM
96% Sanders
87% Clinton
81% O'Malley
44% Kasich
39% Paul
33% Jindal
31% Huckabee
23% Trump (apparently on healthcare, go figure)
23% Bush
23% Christie
11% Fiorina
8% Perry
5% Carson
5% Graham
5% Rubio
3% Walker
0% Cruz
0% Santorum (YES!)
Posted by: LexC 9th August 2015, 09:51 PM
98% Sanders
89% Clinton
52% Bush (somehow I aggree 52% with a Republican, omg help me!)
0% Santorum and Cruz
Posted by: Iz~ 9th August 2015, 09:56 PM
I took this quiz right after Bré mentioned it the other day, and I had in the 90s for Sanders and Clinton (so pretty much the same as you guys), Jeb Bush as the highest Republican on 38% but with Trump in second place not far behind(!) . 3% for Cruz, he seems to be completely out of it.
Trump for Republican nomination I guess.
Posted by: J▼hnkm 9th August 2015, 11:22 PM
85% Sanders
85% Clinton
73% O'Malley
72% Bush
58% Christie
57% Carson
56% Paul
52% Jindal
50% Walker
49% Rubio
47% Graham
46% Huckabee
43% Trump
40% Kasich
37% Santorum
32% Fiorana
27% Cruz
24% Perry
so yeah, that happened
Posted by: 『bré』 10th August 2015, 01:05 AM
I had 7% for Ted Cruz and was disappointed it was even that high. Thank the lord for Johnkm saving me from being the biggest supporter of Ted Cruz!!1
Posted by: Brett-Butler 10th August 2015, 02:42 AM
Bernie Sanders - 80%
Mike Huckabee - 73%
Jeb Bush - 73%
Hillary Clinton - 70%
then on down:
Ted Cruz - 57%
and at the very bottom:
Carly Fiorina - 17%
And apparantly I'm a left-wing authoritarian. Go figure.
Posted by: Danny 24th September 2015, 07:29 PM
Latest polling shows Joe Biden in with a fighting chance of beating Hillary.
Posted by: Qassändra 24th September 2015, 09:51 PM
Notionally with a fighting chance on favourables, but given they have near-identical political positions the contest would get nasty if he entered - because the only USP for Biden at that stage would be 'you're corrupt' (because lord knows, if he was enough of an overwhelming charisma bomb to justify entering on that front you'd have expected him to perform better than 1% in any of the other primaries he entered).
And given the e-mails thing would be the most laughably small thing to count as a knock-out blow on that front, well, ever, there would be a lot of absolutely furious feminists in the Democratic Party who would (quite reasonably) ask if a man would ever be held to the same standard where they were deemed to be too tarnished to be a credible presidential candidate because of having had a private e-mail server instead of a government one. It would really have to be something else that would be a knockout blow to justify Biden entering on that front, and you'd think it would've come out in 2008 if there was something like that out there.
Posted by: Danny 24th September 2015, 11:44 PM
And given the e-mails thing would be the most laughably small thing to count as a knock-out blow on that front, well, ever, there would be a lot of absolutely furious feminists in the Democratic Party who would (quite reasonably) ask if a man would ever be held to the same standard where they were deemed to be too tarnished to be a credible presidential candidate because of having had a private e-mail server instead of a government one. It would really have to be something else that would be a knockout blow to justify Biden entering on that front, and you'd think it would've come out in 2008 if there was something like that out there.
I think Biden if he sold himself as the "real Obama heir" could very easily start chipping away at Clinton's edge with black voters, which is the one thing which is currently keeping Hillary standing.
If anything, I would say given the fact there's little between them on political positioning, it's hard to see what the USP for Clinton over Biden is. The polling consistently shows Biden doing better against Republicans, he's equally as experienced, and he's seen as more honest and likeable.
Posted by: Suedehead2 24th September 2015, 11:58 PM
I'm sure that Biden is now reading Ed Miliband's speeches in a search for material.
Posted by: Qassändra 24th September 2015, 11:59 PM
I mean...apart from greater support within the party (contrast her winning the popular vote in 2008 against Obama versus Biden crashing and burning with asterisk levels of support every time he tried) and first female president? Currently he's doing better, but that's because he's a hypothetical candidate who hasn't been attacked at all (as he would be if he went into the race and had opponents), has a fair amount of public sympathy given his son's just died, and hasn't had to make any unpopular decisions or come out with any unpopular policy. That's something that would change in less than a month if he were to enter the race - it's the equivalent of David Miliband's currently good ratings over here, which would fall to pieces pretty quickly the second there was any focus on him.
However, were Obama to endorse him that could change very quickly. But even then things would still likely get very nasty. I think a lot in the Democratic Party could accept that first black president was a hell of a milestone for America, and one that given its history contextually still gave many Hillary supporters a lot to be proud of in the Democratic candidate. There'd be blood if the most eminently qualified woman to be President who stood a realistic chance in our lifetime was shoved out of the way at the second time of asking for another mediocrity of an old white man, just because he's affable. At least Sanders has a worthy USP of some sorts that could justify that.
Posted by: Qassändra 25th September 2015, 12:13 AM
Looking on the other side of the ledger, I'm coming to the view that the Republicans will nominate the last non-Trump electable conservative standing with considerable support, which will likely be either Bush, Rubio (who I'd say feels most likely right now even though he's in a bad position - he's everyone's fourth or fifth preference, so if he can stay in until things get winnowed down...), or *possibly* Fiorina if she can get New Hampshire. I think Clinton would have an easy time against Bush, a tough fight against Rubio, and would annihilate Fiorina. Biden-Bush would probably be Biden, Biden-Rubio gives me a bad feeling, and I couldn't really call Biden-Fiorina (but then, what are the odds of that matchup even happening?!).
Posted by: Danny 25th September 2015, 06:24 PM
He's the sitting vice-president, and has been one of the loudest advocates for Obama policies for 7 years! You don't get more of a partisan-political figure than that. His numbers now are not comparable to Clinton's polling when she was a hypothetical candidate, because her previous numbers were artificially inflated by her having been "above the fray" for years in a way Biden hasn't been.
Posted by: Qassändra 25th September 2015, 08:24 PM
But that's the thing - he's been advocating someone else's policies (and on the subject, Hillary has yet to come out with anything disagreeing with Obama). And if someone wants to attack Obama policies, they attack Obama - they don't attack Biden. It also means the discussion is literally just around which policies he's advocating, rather than his suitability for leadership (given he's got historically one of the more irrelevant roles of the US government that has little to do with leadership). Clinton as Secretary of State and post-SoS wasn't being attacked for corruption and other things that impinge on her suitability for leadership. If Biden was running for president, his qualifications for a leadership role would be far more forensically analysed by the media and opponents.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th September 2015, 10:13 AM
I'm assuming that Bush will just about pull through, I'm still slightly worried about Trump though. He wouldn't win against Clinton or Biden but Sanders-Trump would be all kinds of uneasy.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th September 2015, 02:11 PM
The problem is that Bush is just going through the motions. He seems to be doing it just because he has to - the donors are starting to shed.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th September 2015, 03:15 PM
He still looks like their best bet.
Posted by: Silas 26th September 2015, 03:43 PM
93% Sanders
91% Clinton
87% Biden
76% O'Malley
59% Huckabee
46% Paul
44% Kasich
44% Bush
43% Christie
39% Jindal
34% Rubio
34% Graham
28% Fiorina
27% Carson
23% Cruz
19% Trump
16% Santorum
Well at least the 3 scumbags are that the bottom of the pile...
Posted by: Qassändra 26th September 2015, 09:05 PM
Nah. Rubio hits pretty much all the same competencies without all the brand downsides, but he comes with charisma. And his weakness (youth and inexperience) is one the Republicans could easily throw the charge of hypocrisy back at the Democrats on because of Obama, whereas we already know it's pretty unlikely the Dems are likely to go with the charge of nepotism and 'NOT ANOTHER BUSH' anyway if they go with Jeb so their ability to rebut that if the Dems choose Hillary means little.
Posted by: Danny 26th September 2015, 09:53 PM
I think there's a strong case that Donald Trump is the Republicans' best candidate. Imo, he has potential to do much better than Romney among industrial workers in the likes of Ohio/Pennsylvania/Michigan -- amid all his craziness about immigrants, he's also made one of his big things the fact that big businesses keep "shipping jobs overseas", which could strike a chord. Plus, I still doubt Clinton especially is going to come close to the turnout that Obama managed with the young / black people.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 26th September 2015, 10:09 PM
Trump would do Clinton's turnout job for her.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th September 2015, 10:20 PM
Yeah, fear and hatred of Trump probably wouldn't be all that far off Obama's candidacy as a driver of votes. And (obviously) there are more women in America than black people - you wouldn't get anything as overwhelming as 95/5, and female voters would always be more diffuse than black voters, but you only have to nudge the margins and turnout on women voters up a few points for it to start outweighing the difference between winning 95/5 with black voters on a big turnout and winning 90/10 on a pre-08 turnout.
Posted by: Qassändra 26th September 2015, 10:25 PM
I see this, but I think the gains from that would be lost by just how many people would be totally put off by how...unpresidential he is. Which sounds a little weak, but I do think there'd be a huge number of people who, even if they did agree with Trump on the point of immigration and jobs going overseas, might vote for that platform at a Senate level but blanch at the idea of Trump representing America to the world.
Not to mention that the Republican machine would be about as unenthusiastic for a Trump run as the Labour machine is for Corbyn.
Posted by: Suedehead2 27th September 2015, 12:26 AM
Not to mention that the Republican machine would be about as unenthusiastic for a Trump run as the Labour machine is for Corbyn.
You could have said the same about Bush Jr. He was widely ridiculed when he stood for the first time, yet he won (sort of). Four years later, he was generally loathed outside the USA (apart from Israel) but he still won.
Posted by: Qassändra 27th September 2015, 09:12 AM
Nowhere near the same level though - Bush was ridiculed for his grammar and malapropisms. He wasn't ridiculed for being a blustering wilfully offensive tool who would probably insult other countries for the sake of it. The illusion of ideology for pissing off other countries is essential - I don't think you need me to explain to you why Bush won in 2004 and why Americans didn't care that he was hated abroad at that time. Those conditions just aren't in place now, and in any case Trump vs Hillary on the nuclear button isn't the question that Bush vs Kerry was.
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd October 2015, 12:10 AM
Jeb Bush basically pulls out of the race by responding to the latest American shooting with the statement: 'stuff happens'. Load the cash on Rubio boys.
Posted by: Qassändra 6th October 2015, 10:04 PM
Hmmmm.
The vice president is mourning. He’s also calculating.
Joe Biden has been making his 2016 deliberations all about his late son since August.
Aug. 1, to be exact — the day renowned Hillary Clinton-critic Maureen Dowd published a column that marked a turning point in the presidential speculation.
According to multiple sources, it was Biden himself who talked to her, painting a tragic portrait of a dying son, Beau’s face partially paralyzed, sitting his father down and trying to make him promise to run for president because "the White House should not revert to the Clintons and that the country would be better off with Biden values.”
It was no coincidence that the preliminary pieces around a prospective campaign started moving right after that column. People read Dowd and started reaching out, those around the vice president would say by way of defensive explanation. He was just answering the phone and listening.
But in truth, Biden had effectively placed an ad in The New York Times, asking them to call.
Before that moment and since, Biden has told the Beau story to others. Sometimes details change — the setting, the exact words. The version he gave Dowd delivered the strongest punch to the gut, making the clearest swipe at Clinton by enshrining the idea of a campaign against her in the words of a son so beloved nationally that his advice is now beyond politics.
This campaign wouldn’t be about her or her email controversy, the story suggests, but connected to righteousness on some higher plane.
Biden has portrayed his decision about a 2016 run as purely emotional, a question of whether he and has family have the strength. That’s a big part of it. But it’s not all of it.
By every account of those surrounding Biden, Beau is constantly on his father’s mind. But so are Clinton’s poll numbers — and his own, as the vice president notes in private details, such as the crosstab data that show him drawing more support from Clinton than Bernie Sanders. So is the prospect of what it would mean to run against a candidate who would make history as the first female nominee, and potentially first female president. So is knowing that the filing deadlines are quickly closing in and that he almost certainly has to decide in roughly the next week to make even a seat-of-the-pants campaign possible.
“Calculation sort of sounds crass, but I guess that’s what it is,” said one person who’s recently spoken to Biden about the prospect of running. “The head is further down the road than the heart is.”
And that’s how it’s been for a while.
At the end of August, while friends were still worrying aloud that he was in the worst mental state possible to be making this decision, he invited Elizabeth Warren for an unannounced Saturday lunch at the Naval Observatory. According to sources connected with Warren, he raised Clinton’s scheduled appearance at the House Benghazi Committee hearing at the end of October, even hinting that there might be a running-mate opening for the Massachusetts senator.
Biden and Warren were alone that afternoon, and those around them have been particularly secretive about the meeting. Warren’s spokesperson didn’t return requests for comment.
"His bet is that disaffection with Hillary will allow him to peel away some of her donors and operatives,” former Obama adviser David Axelrod, who’s spoken about the race with the vice president, told The Associated Press last week, trying to sum up the approach.
A month later, NBC News had sources saying Jill Biden, who’s been struggling with the decision and had been reported to be torn or even opposed, now wouldn’t stand in the way. Several
Biden loyalists said they felt as though she’d been used by the people who’ve been working with the vice president’s overall blessing to add fuel to the speculation.
All of this maneuvering aside, people who are close to the process are surprised at how undetailed and improvisational the planning remains more than two months after Biden trial-ballooned this campaign via Dowd — a known Clinton antagonist, but who also has a history with Biden dating back to her time as one of the most aggressive reporters chasing the plagiarism scandal that ran him out of the 1988 race. (Dowd didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
Despite the data and the numerous conversations, Biden’s still not drilling down. Sources close to him agree that he is allowing the passing time to make the decision for him, but they disagree on whether the calendar is driving him to a yes or making it easier to say no.
But parts of the timing have always been clear: Biden was never going to Las Vegas for the first Democratic debate next Tuesday, according to people familiar with the plans. Better to force Clinton to enter the first contest of the primary season with Biden’s potential challenge looming. And if he’s going to run, the second debate’s only a month later — and that one’s in Iowa.
Certainly, Biden’s decision is an emotional one, too. The tears he is shedding are real. He feels an obligation not just to his son — the line in his interview with Stephen Colbert that he believes he’d be letting Beau down “if I didn’t just get up” has become one of the touchstone moments, as people involved describe his deliberations — but to other people, who’ve told him that he’s an inspiration in their own grief.
The first hurdle is whether he and his family are up to the race, and they still haven’t made a final decision, according to people who know.
Those sources say Biden has thought that, perhaps, a presidential campaign is exactly what the family needs to find new purpose and a sense of renewal. And while they’ll all get behind him if he runs, for now his son Hunter remains the main agitator supporting a campaign, according to people who have spoken with Biden and members of his immediate family in recent weeks. Biden’s sister and confidante Valerie Biden Owens and his wife, among others, are hoping it’s a no, those sources say.
Biden is a devout, Mass-every-Sunday Roman Catholic. That Pope Francis came to Washington in the midst of this decision-making process was a fluke, but still deeply meaningful to Biden.
The two didn’t have a full, private meeting, but they spoke. Biden has told people about the way the pope greeted him when he took his family to Joint Base Andrews with President Barack Obama to meet the pontiff’s plane.
“I know your troubles,” Biden says Pope Francis told him. “I’m so sorry.”
Neither of them brought up 2016.
But he has kept talking about it with Obama. Both remain tight-lipped about those conversations.
They’ve got lunch again Tuesday afternoon at the White House.
Posted by: J▼hnkm 6th October 2015, 10:19 PM
I'm far from knowledgeable enough on all of this, and Biden announcing a run has surely just been a matter of 'when' rather than 'if' for a while. So how dangerous is he likely to be to HRC's chances?
Posted by: Qassändra 6th October 2015, 10:33 PM
Depends what Obama does. If Obama endorses Biden then it's anyone's game.
I still think the fundamentals favour Hillary though - there just isn't a substantive point of difference between the two other than personality. And when you're basing that appeal on authenticity and being unspun when the entire hype for your presidential run has been birthed by you making capital out of leaking your son's dying wish...I mean let's be real, we all know exactly how the media would be reporting it if this had just come out about Hillary.
Posted by: Common Sense 9th October 2015, 07:57 AM
I think Hillary would beat Biden in the primaries. Biden's too old and has made a few gaffes.
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th October 2015, 12:36 PM
If Biden enters the race, I can't see Obama endorsing anyone. He wouldn't want to risk the embarrassment of seeing his favoured candidate losing.
Posted by: popchartfreak 9th October 2015, 12:46 PM
sympathy for personal tragedy is no basis for choosing the would-be most powerful person in the world. You don't get to be a few decades old without having personal experience of tragedy, and people need to know you're going to be able to deal with it and get on with the job if you want a job that important. It's too important for those who have difficulties with personal tragedy to run (and that would include me). Biden isn't sending out a useful message about his chances, quiet stoicism would be the way to go...
Posted by: Danny 9th October 2015, 03:34 PM
His age is a legitimate issue (though Hillary isn't much younger), but the gaffes don't really matter since he's been vice-president, and thus no-one really doubts his competence anymore.
The only real reasons Clinton would probably still have the edge over Biden is that she's got such a headstart by starting her campaign much earlier, and there's a lot of Democrat bigwigs who owe the Clintons favours. Otherwise, Biden is the better candidate - Hillary just isn't a very good politician (people forget how awful her 2007-08 campaign was until late on when she became the "underdog who refuses to quit", but that kind of campaign is inherently only available to her when she's losing).
Posted by: Qassändra 9th October 2015, 03:54 PM
Interesting to note that cynical as it may be, Clinton going against TPP blocks off one of the few populist ways Biden could have manufactured policy difference with her.
Posted by: Suedehead2 21st October 2015, 04:27 PM
Joe Biden has announced he won't be standing.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/21/joe-biden-not-running-president-2016-election
Posted by: Umi 21st October 2015, 04:39 PM
Time to find a new "This guy would be better than Hilary in every way" candidate then.
Posted by: Qassändra 21st October 2015, 10:15 PM
And you just know it'll be a guy.
Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd November 2015, 01:31 PM
Jeb Bush has adopted the slogan "Jeb Can Fix It". Those of us who remember the 2000 Presidential election knew that already.
Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd November 2015, 09:55 PM
wasn't that a Bob The Builder slogan first? Granted the Bush's aren't at the same intellectual level as a child's TV character, but he may get there one day....
Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd November 2015, 10:09 PM
He also has to hope most American voters have never heard of Jim'll Fix It.
Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd November 2015, 10:18 PM
"Jeb'll Fix It" has a better ring to it. He could even adapt, "now then, now then, now then" to give him time to think of a way of avoiding answering questions
Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd November 2015, 10:21 PM
When he starts campaigning in a garish shell suit, it may be time to start worrying 
Posted by: Common Sense 4th November 2015, 04:06 PM
Does anyone here seriously think that any Republican can beat Hillary, assuming she's the Democratic nominee cos I don't? I still think she'll be the next POTUS despite the emails fiasco and it'll be great to have a woman at last.
Posted by: bigwiglaf 4th November 2015, 05:20 PM
Only reason Hillary will be the Democratic nominee is that the Obama administration won't do anything to prosecute her for the email fiasco she's created over her head....and that the Democrats don't have a candidate who's strong enough to unseat her from her position.....
At this stage, which is WAY too early to tell yet, I'm thinking Dr. Ben Carson will have the best chance to beat Hillary for the general elections here November next year.....I think Donald Trump's campaign will fizzle out by the time the Republican convention is held next August or whenever it's held.....Marco Rubio has an outside shot to be the nominee, and Carly Fiorina is fading, although I'd like to see her as the nominee, since she's much more preferable as a woman candidate to me than Hillary will ever be.....
Posted by: Qween 4th November 2015, 06:04 PM
It's still a long way out but pretty much every poll I've seen has her beating them all but Carson. Now that he seems to be moving ahead in the polls a bit, it could be a concern.
Posted by: Common Sense 4th November 2015, 06:13 PM
At this stage, which is WAY too early to tell yet, I'm thinking Dr. Ben Carson will have the best chance to beat Hillary for the general elections here November next year.....I think Donald Trump's campaign will fizzle out by the time the Republican convention is held next August or whenever it's held.....Marco Rubio has an outside shot to be the nominee, and Carly Fiorina is fading, although I'd like to see her as the nominee, since she's much more preferable as a woman candidate to me than Hillary will ever be.....
Thanks for input from across the pond! Agree that Trump's campaign will surely fizzle out. Actually I'd like to see a two woman contest, Fiorina v Clinton but reckon Jeb will be her opponent.
Posted by: Iz~ 4th November 2015, 06:17 PM
I thought Carson was a candidate mainly going to be favoured by the religious right, no? If he gets the nomination, surely he'd get torn apart for things like not knowing basic aspects of international discourse. I mean, he'd do well but I can't see him beating Hillary.
Posted by: Bré 4th November 2015, 06:27 PM
Rubio is far from an 'outside shot' by this stage, I haven't watched the last debate but what I gather from it is Jeb did atrociously at it and Rubio is now the firm favourite of the establishment. And regardless of what the polls say at the moment I'd be surprised if one of the establishment candidates (most likely Rubio) doesn't win the nomination. Carson winning would be as disastrous if not even moreso than Trump winning (because Carson could genuinely beat Hillary to the job he's not even remotely qualified for! Hooray). Unfortunately I think there's a very good chance Rubio could win the general election as well. Basically, Trump to win pls.
Posted by: Qassändra 4th November 2015, 06:27 PM
Carson isn't a concern (and doesn't stand a chance of winning anyhow - not that he would be a concern if he did win, because they could just quote him verbatim and you'd have an easy majority of Americans repulsed by what he's come out with). It's Rubio I fear.
Posted by: bigwiglaf 4th November 2015, 06:40 PM
To be honest, I'm more repulsed by the drivel of Hillary and her cronies than Ben Carson's comments.....even Donald Trump and his rantings make more sense than Hillary.....
Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th November 2015, 06:51 PM
I worry for you.
Rubio would be a threat and would probably delay Texas going blue for a bit longer with the Hispanic vote. Long term that's going to kill the GOP.
Posted by: bigwiglaf 4th November 2015, 07:03 PM
Actually, I worry for everyone who's been sucked in by Hillary's fascist socialism......
Let me ask this, do you people in the UK clamor about redistributing the wealth of those who've earned it, including the monarchy?
Posted by: Brett-Butler 4th November 2015, 07:18 PM
Let me ask this, do you people in the UK clamor about redistributing the wealth of those who've earned it, including the monarchy?
I'm not too sure these words are supposed to go together...
Posted by: Iz~ 4th November 2015, 07:21 PM
Fascist socialism? While I'll just ignore how that makes zero sense as a term, and especially as something to apply to a centre-right candidate, at least as far as non-Americans see the political spectrum Clinton is that. What must you think of Sanders? (actually don't answer that)
The top 1% has never been a good thing and life is not all about the acquisition of wealth. But even so I don't see how anyone could really see Clinton as the worst of anything. The worst I'd apply to her is that she's appealing too much to all bases.
Posted by: popchartfreak 4th November 2015, 08:43 PM
Let me ask this, do you people in the UK clamor about redistributing the wealth of those who've earned it, including the monarchy?
The UK tends to fall into two categories: the well-off/rich who love things to stay as they are because they can buy their children a future and keep a large proportion of their money, and the poorer parts who feel they work just as hard as the rich but dont get the same financial reward or future or education and chances in life. Nobody is saying make the rich poor, just that they do very well out of a system that relies on cheap labour. What annoys me is they seem to think they deserve more money than other people because they've been lucky (or more ruthless) when fairly obviously the corrupt and stupid rich and powerful are the ones that mess up the economy and make huge mistakes that hammer the poor - the poor people cleaning floors or cutting grass or emptying bins have done nothing to harm society......
The Right-wing section of the USA seems to see any attempt to give the unfortunates in society a helping hand as in some way robbing the rich, rather then helping fellow Americans and helping to keep a fair and stable society which allows them to do well out of it. All men are created equal...but sadly that part of the Constitution gets forgotten at times...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
certainly a quote I believe in...!
Posted by: Suedehead2 4th November 2015, 08:58 PM
Let me ask this, do you people in the UK clamor about redistributing the wealth of those who've earned it, including the monarchy?
There are plenty of people in the UK who want to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Unfortunately, we have a government that wants to do the opposite.
Your question is based on the premise that all wealthy people have somehow "earned" their money. How did Cameron "earn" his wealth?
In the 1970s, the highest paid executives were paid around 40 times their lowest-paid staff. Now, the ratio is around 140 - 1 (a lot higher in some companies). Let's put that another way. By the end of the first week of the year, that executive will already have "earned" almost three times as much ads their lowest-paid staff will earn all year. Is their contribution to the company in one week really worth three times as much as other staff will contribute all year?
We can accept that the likes of Adele or JK Rowling's income is directly related to their performance. People buy their products, so they make money. But, with major companies, the relationship is not as clear-cut.
Posted by: bigwiglaf 4th November 2015, 09:43 PM
To be honest, I have no use really for any of the political parties in this country, as I find most of the people in them to be self-serving self-centered twats.....to me, the Democrats want to try and pander to special interest groups like Black Lives Matter, Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition....and the Republicans pander to big business......Obama hasn't made my life any better, especially with Obamacare, and the Republicans don't give two tits about someone in my position.....that's why I'm rooting for one of the outsiders like Donald Trump, Ben Carson or Carly Fiorina as they buck against the current establishment.....
With Bernie Sanders, at least he has the balls to tell it like it is with his political leanings, for which I give him credit, but, try to get Hillary to say the same thing, forget it......besides, Bernie's got no chance in hell against Hillary.....
Posted by: Qassändra 4th November 2015, 09:43 PM
Let me ask this, do you people in the UK clamor about redistributing the wealth of those who've earned it, including the monarchy?
LOL. Okay, was the States under Eisenhower a 'fascist socialist' nation? How about under Reagan, when taxes were higher than they are now?
Also, super cute that you think the monarchy in any way earned anything. You call yourself an American?
Posted by: Qassändra 4th November 2015, 09:44 PM
You think 'Black Lives Matter' is a 'special' interest? As opposed to the basic, American, constitutional interest of 'hey, we'd quite like to not be treated differently for the colour of our skin'?.
That said I'm not really sure you're even clear on what you think, given in one breath you're decrying Hillary Clinton as a 'fascist socialist' but then in another complimenting Bernie Sanders for 'telling it like it is'. It's a bit like saying Subway are poisoning us all with unhealthy food but McDonald's is just a cute treat.
Posted by: bigwiglaf 4th November 2015, 10:02 PM
As to Hillary, she hides too much behind her 'I didn't do it or know it' façade, in my opinion, and really only cares about herself.....at least with Bernie Sanders, he's not hiding behind any political façade.....
As to Black Lives Matter, yes, they're a special interest group, still wanting their free hand outs, as well as being a hate group themselves, espousing beliefs that all cops must die, regardless of skin color.....same thing with the Rainbow Coalition, they're all about what the government can give them as a free hand out instead of completing school and working for it......
Posted by: Soy Adrián 4th November 2015, 10:15 PM
Can we just not.
Posted by: bigwiglaf 4th November 2015, 10:42 PM
Not to worry, this will be my last post in this thread.....
Posted by: Qassändra 4th November 2015, 11:12 PM
Jesus bloody Christ. Even MARCO SODDING RUBIO has a bit more respect for Black Lives Matter's position than that.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 8th December 2015, 04:12 PM
Jesus, Trump even makes Boris look good.
Posted by: Suedehead2 8th December 2015, 06:02 PM
The frightening thing about Trump is that he is still the Republican front-runner only eight weeks away from the first votes. Most people assumed his campaign would have self-destructed by now, but his pronouncements just get more and more extreme.
Posted by: popchartfreak 8th December 2015, 06:12 PM
Ive said it before - never under estimate the gullibilty stupidity and bigotry of people. History has an endless list of examples to prove it...
Posted by: Michael Bubré 8th December 2015, 06:14 PM
It's not surprising that his outrageous statements are helping him rather than hurting him. He STARTED his campaign with the 'Mexicans are criminals and rapists' thing. I don't think there's anything he can say that's so outrageous that it'll lose him his base supporters who are keeping him in the lead.
There are still 13 other people in the race on the Republican side anyway. Once people start dropping out more, Trump's frontrunner status will be challenged more. Just a question of whether that even happens before the votes start coming in.
Posted by: Qassändra 8th December 2015, 08:13 PM
The key thing to remember is just how many Don't Knows there still are. This year's Republican field is the widest and most notionally qualified* at this stage that there has ever been, which means voteshares are incredibly diffuse among the eight or so vaguely competitive candidates (plus another four that...aren't.). In practice he only has about a sixth of the support of Republican voters currently, which equates to about 7% of US voters all in all? I could probably believe that as an estimate for the number of feral nativists in a given population.
*yes, laughable considering the state of the GOP currently, but in terms of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth best placed candidate of a given field. This year you have sitting Senators and Governors in those slots, whereas in the past typically after fourth you just get a load of mentalists who once read a conspiracy theory and based a bestseller and a campaign around it. Although given that's basically Ben Carson this year...
Posted by: Suedehead2 8th December 2015, 08:22 PM
*yes, laughable considering the state of the GOP currently, but in terms of the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth best placed candidate of a given field. This year you have sitting Senators and Governors in those slots, whereas in the past typically after fourth you just get a load of mentalists who once read a conspiracy theory and based a bestseller and a campaign around it. Although given that's basically Ben Carson this year...
The difference is that, this time, the mentalists are the front-runners. Of course, if the number of candidates is down to about four by the ned of February, support might begin to coalesce behind a slightly more sensible candidate (insofar as there is one).
Posted by: Qassändra 8th December 2015, 08:39 PM
My point was more that even the mentalists aside, you would very rarely have ten Senators and Governors in the race at this stage.
Posted by: Qassändra 8th December 2015, 08:40 PM
I think Rubio will win the general if he can win the primary. But that's a massive if.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 8th December 2015, 10:20 PM
I think he'll win the primary but not the general.
Posted by: Qassändra 8th December 2015, 10:56 PM
By the way, this is some HIGH GRADE PLUTONIUM election wonkery but feast your *.*s on THIS
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/11/17/the_gop_race_for_delegates_an_interactive_tool.html
(after that we can chill out with some http://www.americanhistoryusa.com/campaign-trail/)
Posted by: FrostytheBeaver 8th December 2015, 11:27 PM
something similar happened with Barack Obama in 2008, although he arguably did not win the popular vote).
???
He clearly won the popular vote in the Dem Primaries.
Posted by: Qassändra 8th December 2015, 11:38 PM
???
He clearly won the popular vote in the Dem Primaries.
He didn't actually win the popular vote in the Democratic primaries in 2008 because of the way the primaries and caucuses are structured - it's across 50 states and on a delegate basis. Hillary got 17.8m votes and Obama got 17.5m votes.
Obama's campaign turned strategically maximising delegates from each state's primary and caucus into an art. Basically Hillary managed to win the overall popular vote because of winning resoundingly in the big states like California and New York, but Obama organised well enough that those big wins were weighed out in the delegate count by how much he was killing her in the small states and the caucus states (which didn't count towards the popular vote) where she wasn't putting in as much effort.
Plus, given the actual presidential election is done on an electoral vote rather than popular vote basis nobody really took Hillary winning the popular vote as a serious reason why she should've been taken to have won the '08 primaries (also because Florida and Michigan where she racked up big wins got disqualified for reasons it's far too late to go into).
Posted by: Common Sense 9th December 2015, 02:53 PM
Agreed. He won't beat Clinton.
Posted by: Brian Quinn 10th December 2015, 03:19 PM
I sincerely hope that Donald Trump becomes the next President of the U.S.A. He is a true American patriot and is not afraid to say what a lot of Americans are feeling. That is why Obama is really low in opinion polls - he is not. I think Trump will easily beat Hilary Clinton. A strong leader is needed at this dangerous time in the World with all this terrorism being witnessed on our TV screens week after week. We must face up to cancerous ideologies that are attempting to ruin the world and do something about it. Putting boots on the ground in Syria would be a good first step in my opinion to buttress the air strikes now taking place. ISIL will be defeated but it will take time and a concerted effort by many nations and influential people.
Brian
Posted by: Michael Bubré 10th December 2015, 04:20 PM
WELP
Posted by: Qassändra 10th December 2015, 04:40 PM
Obama isn't 'really low' in the opinion polls though - his approval rating is in the high 40s, which is about average for a president (lower than Bill at this stage, but legions higher than Dubya).
Great, but I'm not sure what any of that has to do with electing a man willing to contravene the Constitution to enact racist policies, before we even get to how ludicrously isolated America would be internationally as a result.
Posted by: Common Sense 10th December 2015, 06:06 PM
Brian
Agreed. Trump speaks a lot of sense and would make a great President.
Posted by: Qassändra 10th December 2015, 06:09 PM
LOL
Posted by: Qween 10th December 2015, 06:28 PM
I did have to laugh at The Donald saying he would run as independent if he wasn't ''treated fairly''. I guess it's okay to dish out racist, sexist, homophobic and all the rest BS, but it's not such a sweet pill to swallow yourself. Not that I'm really worried about him anymore, he's so much of a pantomime figure now that he doesn't really stand a chance, he will run on his own ticket, probably damage whatever Republican does get the nod and make it better for HRC.
Posted by: popchartfreak 10th December 2015, 07:02 PM
People confuse the ability to speak BS rhetoric, which anyone with half a brain can do - and trumpy wumpy clearly has half a brain the inept, innaccurate and dumb statements he makes - with an ability to actual run a country and not cock everything up dubya stylee and just make things worse for everyone.
A country of what 300 million and the best they can offer is a hare-brained spoilt bitter twisted billionaire to run the country....? I refer everyone to harrison ford's comment about being President.
Posted by: Qassändra 10th December 2015, 07:08 PM
He certainly isn't the best they can offer.
Posted by: dhwe 10th December 2015, 07:57 PM
I mean, it's always easier for a rich white man with connections, no matter his qualifications, to shoehorn himself into politics than it is for pretty much everyone else, but that clearly doesn't mean he's the best or that thousands of others with sincere intentions wouldn't try if they could (or if the odds weren't stacked against them).
Posted by: popchartfreak 11th December 2015, 01:55 AM
I agree there are thousands of potentially brilliant usa presidents but they either have to be rich or else appeal to rich interest groups to campaign for votes. it would be lovely if ability was the primary reason to get elected rather than an occasional nice surprise like obama was, who even his detractors have to admit he is genuine and well- intentioned, not in it for his own self interest.
Posted by: Danny 12th December 2015, 06:02 PM
Who do you think it will be? I got heavily on Rubio on Betfair a few months ago, on the basis that he had less flaws than any of the others, but I'm having doubts now - the fact he's still flatlining in the polls even after a couple of months of pretty good media attention (especially the hype after one of the debates) makes me think there must be some fundamental problems with him to the Republican selectorate.
I'm now thinking Chris Christie might be worth a punt - he's starting to pick up in the New Hampshire polls, and he might have the combination of being moderate enough in policies to satisfy the Republican establishment, while having enough of an abrasive and "strong-man" personality to win over some Trump voters.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th December 2015, 06:20 PM
I'm now thinking Chris Christie might be worth a punt - he's starting to pick up in the New Hampshire polls, and he might have the combination of being moderate enough in policies to satisfy the Republican establishment, while having enough of an abrasive and "strong-man" personality to win over some Trump voters.
You're back! *.*
I'm still split between Rubio and Cruz. But if I had to call it now, I'd say Cruz, as I think the base have gone mad and reached the logical conclusion of the GOP's rhetoric for the last 25 years, and the pool of votes that Cruz can easily tap into seems bigger (given he could have a strong argument for calling on the ~40% Trump and Carson have, plus the ~5% Santorum and Huckabee have, plus a good chunk of the ~3% Rand Paul has).
That said, I think Rubio's current polling is held back by:
a. a lot of the Republican selectorate being undecided/not paying attention yet, and the related:
b. that the moderate vote is split across about eight candidates at the moment.
But a Rubio win relies on the assumption that those undecideds are more moderate, which isn't an assumption I'd want to make (even though I think it's likely, as I think you'd probably know if your bread was buttered by now with Trump/Cruz if you had those kinds of views).
Also, a lot really depends on how it plays out - if Trump sticks in until the end of the race (which I think he will if he isn't embarrassed in IA/NH/SC/NV) and retains a minimum core support of about 20% (which I think he would), then so long as there are two other candidates in there as well and one of them isn't winning every primary resoundingly, a brokered convention is pretty likely. The RNC will do everything in their power to stop Cruz and Trump, but if Rubio is behind Cruz or Trump by the time it gets to Cleveland then I can't see many of Trump's delegates going to Rubio.
That said I'm an increasingly big fan of the idea that this is all an evil plan Trump and Hillary cooked up and that he'll run third party and give Hillary an easy win anyway, as I get the feeling that the Republican base will be more easily fractured by him than the Democratic one (where I can only really see union workers potentially defecting).
On Christie, I think he's too poisonous to Republican voters after hugging Obama, and I think the market for 'abrasive but moderate' with voters currently supporting Trump is likely quite small (although fairly big in the electorate at large). I think he's in with a good shot in New Hampshire but I can't see him having the resources to make it out of the SEC primaries on March 1 alive, and I have a feeling Rubio will probably be the most viable 'moderate' (ha!) candidate by that point off the back of Nevada.
Posted by: Qassändra 12th December 2015, 06:25 PM
Also this is the sentence that confirms the Tea Party won in the end.
(Compare and contrast the Labour leadership contest in 2020 when moderates all line up to swear allegiance to Lisa Nandy.)
Posted by: FrostytheBeaver 13th December 2015, 12:15 AM
I still think Trump is a troll,s especially after his comment that his grandparents didn't leave Germany for the U.S to see it overtaken by immigrants.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 13th December 2015, 12:32 AM
That Tweet was a https://twitter.com/mcdonaldjtrump/status/640698884998590464.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 13th December 2015, 11:05 PM
(Compare and contrast the Labour leadership contest in 2020 when moderates all line up to swear allegiance to Lisa Nandy.)
Nandy v Lewis would be really quite something.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 03:55 PM
So Clinton's lead unfortunately collapsed after Christmas.
Do we think Bernie Sanders has a shot at winning the election then? Might be a landslide victory as the Republicans have attacked Hillary endlessly, leaving him to fly under thw radar so much his poll numbers are almost like those of a candidate not yet in the race, so he will have that clean slate advantage. I really wanted Hillary to win, it's 2008 all over again :/ .
Posted by: Bré 15th January 2016, 03:58 PM
The hypothetical general election polls show Bernie beating all of the Republicans by more than Hillary does. He probably still won't win the nomination anyway but I don't think it's much of a worry that the Republican nominee would beat him if he does (especially if it's Trump as it's apparently looking more and more likely it will be - after months and months of his lead not letting up the bookies at least finally have him as the favourite).
(#feelthebern)
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 04:03 PM
I think he's a sure fire win for the nomination now - all the polls point to that overall trend :/ . He won't choose Hillary as running mate either, but Elizabeth Warren. It's a shame as I reckon Hillary would have Bernie as running mate, pleasing more people.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 15th January 2016, 04:08 PM
I'd quite like to see Hilary & someone other than Trump (haven't decided who yet) win the respective nominations for their parties, then see both Bernie Sanders & Donald Trump run as independents so that we'll have a genuine 4 candidate run. Both Trump and Sanders would probably be happy to run as independents, especially given that Sanders didn't join the Democrats until last year and Trump's relationship with the Republicans at the moment is pragmatic at best, and it means we'll have the full gamut of ideological positions (socially & economically liberal, socially liberal, economically conservative/socially liberal, economically liberal/socially conservative, socially & economically conservative), which would be quite interesting indeed.
Posted by: Qween 15th January 2016, 04:10 PM
I don't really think there's THAT much to worry about. Yes, her lead has dwindled a lot since December, but she is still ahead and Bernie is no Obama.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 04:20 PM
Her lead is diminishing daster than vs. Obama at this stage, he leads with under 30s, is cutting into her leads with blavk and Hispanic and women voters who are her core and looks set for h7ge victories in the caucuses Iowa and New Hampshire meaning he will get the momentum. Unfortunately this all means we won't be getting Hillary as president 
The thing is she will likelly retire after another defeat like this :/
Posted by: Bré 15th January 2016, 04:21 PM
Sanders has said he won't run against Hillary if he loses as he doesn't want to swing the election in favour of the Republicans. Trump might be narcissistic enough to do so and have the opposite effect. (Though he has also officially signed a pledge saying he won't... but that doesn't really mean anything when this is Trump we're talking about).
Bernie to win the Dem nomination, Trump to lose and run third party, Bernie to win all 50 states. Pls. (I'd like the idea of having a female President which I'm guessing is one of the main arguments in Hillary's favour... but Bernie is just a far, far superior candidate).
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 04:25 PM
I much prefer Hillary but Bernie is running away with it.
Posted by: Qassändra 15th January 2016, 04:39 PM
He's behind Clinton by miles nationally and ahead in the odd poll of New Hampshire and generally behind in Iowa. There is literally no trend showing a Bernie nomination is *likely*, let alone surefire.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 04:43 PM
A couple links, combined with her collapsed lead;
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8968048
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/hillary-clintons-national-lead-is-slipping-faster-in-2016-than-it-did-in-2008/?postshare=1361452797374066&tid=ss_tw
Posted by: Qassändra 15th January 2016, 04:45 PM
Mostly as Bernie matchups have far higher levels of Don't Know responses at this point - which obviously wouldn't necessarily be the case by the time of an actual general election, but currently most undecided Republican-leaning voters know what they think about Hillary but don't know what they think about Bernie other than maybe that he seems different from your average Democrat. I'd say it's fairly unlikely that when it comes down to it those ex-GOP Don't Knows would go for him.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 04:49 PM
He polls really well with Republicans in Vermont and isn't as polarising. Hillary has been the arch-Democrat for decades now. Bernie has been an independent till last year. I don't want him to qin, but it seems very likely. After the impetus he will get following big wins in the early states and encroaching into Hillary's mational lead, it mighr actually be a landslide.
Posted by: Qassändra 15th January 2016, 04:59 PM
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8968048
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/14/hillary-clintons-national-lead-is-slipping-faster-in-2016-than-it-did-in-2008/?postshare=1361452797374066&tid=ss_tw
The first article is literally a load of cherrypicked polling questions backed up by hedgehog 'THIS WILL DEFINITELY HAPPEN' blustering - which, again, rely on marginally overall positive responses for a candidate unknown to most Americans versus equivocal responses for the most well-known American woman of the last 25 years. If you have 20 people who say they like someone and 18 who say they doesn't, does that make them more popular than someone where 40 say they like them and 45 say they don't? Net ratings are junk as a predictor of primary results.
As for the latter, one of the most elementary lessons of GCSE Statistics is that trends are not absolute. Just because someone falls four points this week doesn't mean they'll fall four points next week - particularly in polls, where sharp moves either way in a single poll are typically followed by a sharp move the other way in the next poll, because of sample noise.
And Iowa and New Hampshire - which Bernie could well win either of, or both, which I've said for months now - are as favourable a ground Bernie will ever get as simultaneously the whitest and most liberal Democratic state parties nationally. If he's only winning those narrowly, what does that say for his chances nationally?
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 05:03 PM
His command in New Hampshire is quite commanding, and she had this same trend, but less pronounced, towards the end of 2008's campaign. Furthermore, pollsters have been poot recently as we all know - and with Bernie leading on social media etc and with more grass roots support, it is likely any polling mistakes will lean in his favour.
Posted by: Bré 15th January 2016, 05:20 PM
He's winning by quite a lot in NH isn't he?
If he wins both of them that will give him some serious momentum which could swing things very quickly elsewhere. At this stage there are still a lot of undecided voters and people who still haven't started properly paying attention yet, so by the time they do the narrative might be that Bernie is the frontrunner. Obviously not saying he'll definitely win if he wins Iowa and NH (it's still pretty unlikely for the reason you stated in this post) but it would give him a very real chance. If he loses either of them he'll be done for. It's very fortunate for him that these 2 states happen to vote first.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 05:23 PM
His lead in New Hampshire is double digits, which will increase his majority after winning there in Iowa. The narrative after this will be he is the frontrunnwer, you are right, and motivate grass roots and social media campaigns. Could be a landslide victory :/
Posted by: Oliver 15th January 2016, 09:52 PM
Wasn't everyone saying (not on here before you say) that Mitt Romney four years ago was going to thrash Obama, then it turned out that Obama actually had quite the substantial lead by the time the election actually came about (in terms of the electoral vote)?
Or when everyone was scared that UKIP might actually do something last year and get 4+ seats to then only end up getting the one?
I don't really pay attention to a lot of the polls because they always seem to have some bias towards them and for the most part they always tend to be wrong when it comes to the actual end product.
I still think that Hilary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and go on to become the next POTUS.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 09:55 PM
That would require polling to lean in her favour with younger votwrs and grass roots cpaigners qnd also the democratic groups which have now endorsed Sanders.
She needs Obama to endorse her to make up the lost ground now tbh.
Posted by: FezVez 15th January 2016, 09:58 PM
Stop scaring me! #Hillary2016
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 15th January 2016, 09:59 PM
I want her to win too but she's not going to even be his running mate!!
Posted by: Qassändra 16th January 2016, 12:31 AM
I'm going to quote all these posts in May when Hillary is the nominee.
Posted by: Qassändra 16th January 2016, 12:33 AM
No it won't! Even if he won in Iowa and New Hampshire, the narrative *wouldn't* be that he was the frontrunner, it would be that he's the insurgent candidate who's managed to score two big wins over the establishment. He'd need to win outside of those two before people who don't already support him consider him the frontrunner by any means.
Posted by: Qassändra 16th January 2016, 12:35 AM
In which case why are you citing them in Sanders' favour? You can't have your cake and eat it on this. Not that this statement is applicable anyhow: a poor call in British opinion polling doesn't suddenly mean American polling is unreliable, because the two operate under very different contexts.
Posted by: Common Sense 16th January 2016, 03:35 PM
Iowa caucus Feb.1st
New Hampshire caucus Feb. 9th.
Posted by: Danny 17th January 2016, 12:02 AM
But the thing is that Hillary's lead in the national polls is still largely based on her HUGE lead with black voters. But it's not actually clear whether they genuinely have affinity with her, or whether it's more that they tend to be less interested in politics and are simply answering Clinton by default right now because they know nothing about Sanders (or haven't even heard of him). If it's the latter, then the media coverage from a potential Sanders Iowa/New Hampshire sweep would certainly get them to know him, and COULD (COULD!) switch things round with black voters, as happened in 2008 after Obama's early success.
That said, an Obama endorsement for Hillary would probably guard against the chances of that. I would still expect Hillary to grind it out at this point, but it's going to be competitive.
(Also, New Hampshire ok, but is Iowa really that liberal? It wouldn't really have struck me as one of the most Sanders-friendly states.)
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 17th January 2016, 12:08 AM
And all it takes is Sanders to release well-timed soundbites of her vs Obama in 2008 when reaching the south + the momentum...
Posted by: Qassändra 17th January 2016, 12:23 AM
That said, an Obama endorsement for Hillary would probably guard against the chances of that. I would still expect Hillary to grind it out at this point, but it's going to be competitive.
To a degree, yes. But black voters only make up about 10-15% of the electorate - a big chunk for sure, but Hillary's lead of 15-20 points means she'd still be leading even if that lead was eroded from a 90-10 one (is it? I don't have the figures to hand for her lead with black voters but I'm assuming it's around that proportion) to a 60-40 or even 50-50 one.
You're right that there's an element where if he won both it would reset the narrative to a large degree, but I think the rest of the country's Democratic voters just wouldn't be that open to someone who self-identifies as socialist for it to be easy territory for Sanders, even after a reset.
Iowa as a state isn't that liberal, but the Democratic Party within it has among the highest proportion of self-identified liberals nationally:
Posted by: Qassändra 17th January 2016, 12:24 AM
Hillary never had what could be properly described as a foot-in-mouth moment in 2008. She left that to Bill!
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 17th January 2016, 12:33 AM
I think Sanders has this now unfortunately.
Posted by: Qassändra 17th January 2016, 12:48 AM
We gathered. You haven't really brought any extra evidence to the table since the last time you said that though.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 17th January 2016, 12:55 AM
The trend, polls and his upcoming momentum all point to this. She had a 58-point lead last summer! The nomination ends in May. Following his momentum and the overall trend since last summer, I cannot see Bernie losing now.
Posted by: Qassändra 17th January 2016, 01:02 AM
Oh COME ON, she was the ONLY CANDIDATE OF NOTE last summer!
Bernie probably WILL rise further if he wins New Hampshire (as looks likeliest), but to take two points on a scale that starts with him not being a candidate and ends with him now being the only real opposition to a divisive and well-known candidate, and extrapolate that the trend will continue exactly as it did between those two very different points is junk maths.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 18th January 2016, 07:27 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/democratic-debate-2016-highlights/index.html
In the fiestiest debate, Bernie made the same 58-point summer lead and electability arguments I made and challenged Hillary directly, with supporters supposedly worried it is a repeat of 2008 at this point like I was saying.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 18th January 2016, 09:52 AM
In the fiestiest debate, Bernie made the same 58-point summer lead and electability arguments I made and challenged Hillary directly, with supporters supposedly worried it is a repeat of 2008 at this point like I was saying.
Of course he's going to make that point, self-promotion is part of the game. Doesn't make you saying it any more correct.
Posted by: Qassändra 18th January 2016, 07:36 PM
I should also add that at implied odds of about 20% that he'll be the nominee, if someone so wished they could make a fair amount of money if they were convinced Sanders will definitely win.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 19th January 2016, 01:36 AM
Hmm 
:hmm:
I am convinced so it could be a good call...
Posted by: Brett-Butler 19th January 2016, 09:46 PM
Sarah Palin is endorsing Donald Trump. Interesting.
Posted by: Suedehead2 19th January 2016, 09:54 PM
Let's face it, they were made for each other.
Posted by: HelenSpark 19th January 2016, 10:03 PM
Clinton is really cool
Posted by: Qassändra 19th January 2016, 10:13 PM
I'm 90% certain at this point that HelenSpark is Britney
Posted by: Common Sense 20th January 2016, 08:23 AM
Wonder if Trump would pick Palin for his running mate.
Posted by: Qassändra 20th January 2016, 08:51 AM
God it would be BEAUTIFUL TO WATCH
Posted by: Steve201 20th January 2016, 09:08 AM
A disaster waiting to happen!
When are the republican/democrat votes?
Posted by: princess_lotti 22nd January 2016, 04:14 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/21/politics/iowa-poll-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-ted-cruz/index.html?sr=nfCNN012116iowa-poll-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-ted-cruz0403PMVODtop&sr=fbpol012116iowa-poll-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-ted-cruz0931PMStoryLink&linkId=20561745
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 22nd January 2016, 05:06 PM
Bernie has huuuge double digit leads in the early states now.it's ovwr
Posted by: Qassändra 22nd January 2016, 05:17 PM
Uhhh...no. This is Iowa.
Posted by: Silas 22nd January 2016, 05:36 PM
Iowa is one of the whitest states in the union. Hilary does so much better with minorities that she will be comfortably ahead in states that aren't quite so whitewashed.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 22nd January 2016, 10:01 PM
I wonder whether as the campaign continues her lead with minorities might slip a little as Sanders continues to break out of his traditional base. She's still massive favourite in the national picture though, obviously.
Posted by: Danny 22nd January 2016, 10:32 PM
Well, there's a new poll out of the far less white Nevada, where Clinton has only a 4-point lead
http://overtimepolitics.com/clinton-holds-slight-lead-over-sanders-in-nevada-47-43/
Posted by: Bré 22nd January 2016, 10:36 PM
Worth noting that, though it is of course almost certainly an outlier, there was a New Hampshire poll the other day giving Bernie a 27 point lead (60-33). And he even had a 3 point lead in the last poll by Gravis Marketing which is apparently massively skewed towards older voters so shows a substantial bias towards Hillary. Iowa is still up in the air but NH is looking like a safe win for Bernie.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 23rd January 2016, 12:17 AM
We have lost Hillary as President now thanks to the Bernie Bros. I can't help but think misogyny played more than a little part in it...
Posted by: Qween 23rd January 2016, 12:39 AM
Care to share the time travel/universe hopping technology you have invented/stolen/purchased in order to travel back in time, from an alternate universe, to inform of this outcome?
Realistically Hillary is fine, she'll lose both NH and Iowa, but still win overall. It'll be a harder fight than they expected even just a few weeks ago, but in big picture terms she's still a long way off losing to Bernie overall. No doubt we'll see a decent bump for Bernie after he wins those 2, but I doubt it'll be enough to best her in places where she has support across a broader range of demographics than he does (and indeed states WITH a broader range of demographics too).
The general is, of course, an entirely different story and I won't pretend to be knowledgable enough about that, but having a tougher fight now might not be the worst thing in the long run if it prepares her better for the big fight ahead.
Posted by: LexDANCE 23rd January 2016, 01:35 AM
The one hang up I have about Hilary is (especially if Trump's the nominee which I'm still none the wiser as to whether or not that's likely to happen, but even then I guess it still applies a bit regardless) that there's a route of attack with her to paint her as 'establishment/they're all the same/liar liar pantsuit on fire' which leaves the free world vulnerable to a madman being its leader.
But assuming a good result, Hilary and Bernie would both make good presidents (also the Republicans being out of the White House for a generation is always a good thing).
Posted by: popchartfreak 23rd January 2016, 02:23 PM
assuming it's Clinton vs Trump, lots of opportunities for the "safe pair of hands" vs "no experience whatsoever in anything except making himself rich" argument to undercut anything Trump says. Friend of the Clinton's, interestingly, and the Republican establishment appear to be making contact with Trump lately....
Posted by: Qassändra 26th January 2016, 08:05 PM
Utterly remarkable - evangelicals are all starting to line up behind Trump, not Cruz, and the Republican National Committee is firing all of its ammo at Cruz, not Trump. If they both manage to suffocate Cruz in his crib...well, I can't really call it, but it's a dangerous gameplan. Trump's going to be winning everything until mid-March at this rate. Once he's had a streak that long, how capable will Rubio be of stopping him?
I can kind of see why - Trump vs a moderate does seem more winnable and favourable than a moderate vs Cruz. The problem is that obviously it really increases Trump's chances of winning too. Take Trump's voters and Cruz's voters and I'm pretty sure that's verging on a majority of the current Republican Party, if not already the majority.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 26th January 2016, 08:35 PM
So enough support to have Donald Trump LOL as president and defeat Bernie Sanders?
Posted by: Qassändra 26th January 2016, 08:37 PM
In the unlikely event it's Trump vs. Sanders, Bloomberg would probably be the favourite. I wouldn't want to call who'd be more likely to win out of Trump or Sanders though. Possibly Sanders, if only because much as he's got a long way to fall given he's relatively undefined negatively, it would be difficult for the Republicans to get his general ratings as low as Trump's - but again, we're into the twilight zone if they're both the candidates, so at that point you may as well throw all previous evidence out of the window.
It would literally be unprecedented for both parties to field a radical for the same presidential election. We're going back 44 years to find the last time even one did.
Posted by: Common Sense 27th January 2016, 05:07 PM
Did anyone see the Ch.4 programme at 9 last night, The Mad World Of Donald Trump? Alex Salmond said that if Trump gets his hand on the nuclear button then he's moving to Antarctica as the fallout of ash is least there! LOL, even one of Trump's biographers said that he has issues and such a man shouldn't be anywhere near the nuclear football. He was described as a man whom no-one has ever dared say no to.
I see he's pulled out of the final Iowa Republican debate as he has issues with the female moderator and called her "lightweight" after they clashed before.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 27th January 2016, 05:20 PM
And that show was supposed to make people LESS likely to support Trump?
Posted by: popchartfreak 27th January 2016, 08:31 PM
I see he's pulled out of the final Iowa Republican debate as he has issues with the female moderator and called her "lightweight" after they clashed before.
didn't see the programme, but Trump harbours grudges bitterly over the slightest thing (ie someone who disagrees with him, especially women) - he still trolls Selina Scott after a negative piece she did on him back in the early 90's, which truly shows a disturbed stroppy spoilt child psyche and someone who in no way should be allowed near anything grown-ups need to control.
Sexist misogynistic rich brat who never grew up...
Posted by: Common Sense 27th January 2016, 11:12 PM
Sexist misogynistic rich brat who never grew up...
Selina said he sent her more than a dozen nasty threatening letters and she warned him to stop or she'd take legal action against him. Have you heard what he said to this Fox News moderator, about the blood "coming from her eyes and somewhere else?" He was trying to blame her time of the month on her giving him a hard time!!
Posted by: popchartfreak 28th January 2016, 07:19 PM
frankly he is the 6-foot equivalent of what he was trying to refer to....!
Posted by: Qassändra 31st January 2016, 12:04 AM
The Des Moines Register - cited a lot as the golden standard for Iowa pollsters - have released their final poll before the Iowa caucuses on Monday.
Democratic caucus
Hillary Clinton - 45%
Bernie Sanders - 42%
Martin O'Malley - 3%
Republican caucus
Donald Trump - 28%
Ted Cruz - 23%
Marco Rubio - 15%
Ben Carson - 10%
Rand Paul - 5%
Chris Christie - 3%
Jeb Bush - 2% (!)
Carly Fiorina - 2%
Mike Huckabee - 2%
John Kasich - 2%
Rick Santorum - 2%
Posted by: Qween 31st January 2016, 12:24 AM
What's the margin of error like on those numbers then?
EDIT: I found it myself and it seems to be 4%, which isn't too bad for old HRC then.
Posted by: Qassändra 31st January 2016, 12:41 AM
Yeah. Not bad for Hillary, but not in the bag quite yet. If she beats Bernie in Iowa I think that's game over for him, but I think if she does she needs to be careful not to act like it's a full and total endorsement. I think the best way she could get the whole party behind her would be by choosing Elizabeth Warren as her VP. She'll probably go for Julian Castro though.
Posted by: Danny 31st January 2016, 01:09 PM
I think Clinton will just edge Iowa by a hair (like Romney-vs-Santorum 2012 margin).
Trump should probably take the Republican one, with maybe Rubio a surprise second - Cruz seems to have come right off the boil after his flop in the debate the other day, and there's just a few tiny signs that Rubio's clean-cut wholesome image is cutting into Cruz's support with the evangelical Christians.
Posted by: Qassändra 31st January 2016, 01:46 PM
The thing I find most amusing is how apparently the biggest thing that's cut into Cruz's evangelical support has been the reveal of his tax records, which have shown he doesn't tithe (10% of annual income to charity). Defeated by his own predatory capitalism *.*
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 31st January 2016, 05:59 PM
What is tithe?
Posted by: Brett-Butler 31st January 2016, 06:19 PM
A tithe is a requirement by some religions to give a percentage, usually 10%, of your income to charitable causes. I believe that Judaism, Islam, Mormonism and some forms of Christianity follow it (it isn't a requirement of Catholicism, although we are encouraged to donate to charitable causes).
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 31st January 2016, 06:24 PM
Ahhh right.
The Bernie Bros are going all out on social media.
If she wins - big If - she will need Bernie as VP to unite the Femocrats after this disaster of a run.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 31st January 2016, 06:43 PM
The Bernie Bros are going all out on social media.
If she wins - big If - she will need Bernie as VP to unite the Femocrats after this disaster of a run.
Why?
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 31st January 2016, 08:21 PM
As the Bernie Bros have been attacking her on everything, supported by Republicans working to get the weaker candidate elected. They qill not vote for Hillary alone after all the attacks. She would need Bernie to get them on side.
Posted by: Qassändra 31st January 2016, 08:43 PM
No she wouldn't - there are plenty of people who support Bernie who would be just as on board with Elizabeth Warren.
That said if Trump gets selected, I do think that for all the pig-headed 'I'm voting Green' reflexes there'd doubtless be if Hillary was the candidate, a lot of them will realise the contest is far too important to risk an open racist being president for that kind of self-indulgence.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 31st January 2016, 08:59 PM
Well Bernie has a good chance of winning unfortunately and choosing Warren and Donald of choosing Palin but I so hope Palin isn't first U.S female president .
Posted by: Bré 2nd February 2016, 05:27 AM
So Ted Cruz won in Iowa... not really surprising after the last 2 Republican winners. Seriously though I'd rather have Trump winning I think, how anyone can like Cruz is utterly beyond me. Every bit as detestable and dangerous as Trump but with the bonus of being perhaps the fakest politician there is and just generally needing a punch to the face.
Clinton and Sanders essentially in a dead heat, yet to be called either way but really Clinton has won by not being convincingly beaten even if she ultimately technically loses. It's not quite a crushing defeat for Bernie but he needed to do better than this most likely.
Also O'Malley has FINALLY dropped out. He was entirely irrelevant to the proceedings by this stage anyway but I feel like we'll be seeing him again in 4 or 8 years' time...
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd February 2016, 06:07 AM
NO, it's fine, it's fine! *.* Cruz is eminently beatable. I mean, so is Trump but it would set an incredibly worrying precedent if he ended up the nominee.
Danny proving v prescient by calling in the Santorum precedent for the Democratic race, but regardless of who technically wins that's the Democratic race decided - if Bernie can at best only scrape the narrowest of wins in one of the most favourable states in the country for him, that's a Clinton win overall.
Still think Rubio's gonna be the nominee.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd February 2016, 08:16 AM
OMG Bernie has 86% of the youth vote
He's gonna win with more media coverage after this as well as social media.
Cruz is also :/
Santorum effect?
Posted by: Qween 2nd February 2016, 09:15 AM
So, that's all broadly good news then. Well so much, not Rubio looking like he's going to be THE ONE following this, but if Trump is as egotistical as he has been up to this point hopefully he runs as an Independent.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd February 2016, 09:22 AM
He's gonna win with more media coverage after this as well as social media.
Yeah, the trolling doesn't really work when this is the equivalent of Labour pulling a close loss out of a seat in Manchester. If he isn't winning here, he won't get enough support to win in anything other than a handful of states in New England and the odd one elsewhere.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 2nd February 2016, 09:28 AM
I'm still thinking that Sanders will start chipping away at the leads Hillary has with the demographic groups which back her most strongly as the primaries continue and it becomes such a pronounced two-horse race. At this point, winning ten or so states and pushing her into asking Warren or another establishment lefty to be her running mate should be seen as achievable and highly commendable.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd February 2016, 09:52 AM
You're forgetting there was a media BLACKOUT on him, except on social media - hence the youth (and let's face it, at times hipster) polling. With a two horse race and increased media coverage, esp. After a huge win in NH, puts the trend towards him.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd February 2016, 10:06 AM
In what sense has there been a media blackout of him?! The media have been doing literally everything in their power to turn this into a two-horse race!
And no, again, much as the media may try to create that narrative, narrowly losing and then winning two of the most favourable states for you in the country does not 'put the trend towards him'. Bases of support are KIND OF A THING
Posted by: Iz~ 2nd February 2016, 10:11 AM
Maybe I've just been getting all of my American news from Reddit (and I'm sure it's different with TV and other news sites) but it seems there's virtually no good publicity for Clinton in the media and every bit of good publicity for Bernie. He's doing fine on that front. Probably not on the actually winning things front after this.
Cruz winning is a bit awful that he's getting vindicated but there's no chance of him winning the whole thing so I'm not that worried.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd February 2016, 10:21 AM
There were two really interesting things about the result:
a. the Republican establishment threw everything they had at bringing down Cruz and barely anything at Trump.
b. the expectation on Cruz's side was that an ordinary turnout was good for Cruz and a huge turnout was good for Trump.
Despite all that, the turnout was huge and Cruz still won. Which raises the question: was it huge because a lot of people were coming out to vote against Trump and voted for Cruz as the most likely to beat him? Or was it huge because Cruz's turnout operation is *that* good?
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd February 2016, 10:26 AM
Well Iowa voted for Huckerbee last time!
Newspapers are even asking WHY the media missed Bernie earliee so he was ignored by media trying to delegitimise him.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd February 2016, 10:56 AM
You mean the Bernie Sanders that has had more news coverage in every month since his campaign started than Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and who has had basically the same amount of coverage as Hillary Clinton since the Benghazi hearings finished? Mmm, really ignored.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd February 2016, 11:00 AM
I counter with:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/18/politics/bernie-sanders-media/
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd February 2016, 11:04 AM
You're countering an actual metric of the media coverage every candidate has received with a headline really transparently serving a media narrative, which says nothing to refute the measurement other than an unsupported assertion that he hasn't had much coverage?
Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd February 2016, 01:17 PM
It's not clear what your graphic is showing. Is it showing the number of searches, or the number of news items found? If it is the former, that could support the contention that Sanders isn't getting as much coverage. It could be that people are using Google to find the sort of information they haven't found in, for example, print and broadcast media. It is notable that the top search questions for Sanders are more policy-related than those for Clinton, although there are, of course, many possible explanations for this.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd February 2016, 01:21 PM
News items found.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd February 2016, 03:05 PM
Bernie is already chasing her lead in SC and other states ...
The trend is clear even if you say her support base will help against it.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd February 2016, 04:17 PM
Btw your graph is wrong. It is a googletrends graph for SEARCHES.
Here:
https://www.google.com/trends/story/US_cu_LVTAMlIBAAC_5M_en
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd February 2016, 04:35 PM
No it isn't - it's a Google Trends graph for News stories. As it says at the top of the image.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd February 2016, 04:48 PM
And yet is identical to trend graph of searches during the debate! And the news box is unchecked in the search.
A quick google search though shows tons of articles now talking about the blackout there was.
Posted by: FezVez 2nd February 2016, 06:52 PM
I love following US elections but don't claim to be any expert on them. A pundit on BBC News said that Bernie should've made a better inroad in Iowa if he is to win the nomination. Is that correct? Is Iowa a liberal (in the American sense) state?
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd February 2016, 06:54 PM
Yes and no.
It is more white and liberal and a college state.
However the trend is on his side and with more media coverage it's really 50-50 now.
Posted by: Danny 2nd February 2016, 07:21 PM
To WIN the nomination Sanders probably needed Iowa, but he could definitely stretch the contest out for a while.
I could see him pretty much sweeping the board in New England (quite possibly including New York), and the West Coast and the Rust Belt could be good territory for him too. That said, ethnic minorities (especially black voters) still seem very secure for Clinton even after Sanders' surge in recent weeks, and it's hard to see how Sanders could get the nomination if he has such a poor showing with them.
Posted by: Bré 4th February 2016, 03:49 PM
This might be the saddest thing I have ever witnessed.
Posted by: Iz~ 4th February 2016, 03:51 PM
:'( I never expected feels in this topic.
Posted by: Danny 5th February 2016, 05:54 PM
Clinton's national lead over Sanders down to just 2% in the latest Quinnipiac poll - a massive swing from the 31% lead she had in December:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/poll-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-tie-quinnipiac-2016-2?r=US&IR=T
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 5th February 2016, 06:06 PM
The trend was always pointing this way.
I was right.
He will have a landslide victory to nomination.
Posted by: Qassändra 5th February 2016, 06:13 PM
I was right.
He will have a landslide victory to nomination.
No, he's lost.
Posted by: Danny 5th February 2016, 06:24 PM
Clinton is still the favourite, but there's a path for Sanders now -- there really aren't THAT many states where black voters make up the overwhelming majority of the Democrat selectorate, yet increasingly it looks like that might be what Clinton is mainly relying on.
The theory that "Iowa was one of Sanders's best states" is based on the assumption that Sanders' ONLY appeal to is to highly-educated liberal white people (the "Guardianista" equivalents) but he wouldn't be getting close to 40% in national polls if he hadn't expanded his support base beyond that. Plus, apart from anything else, Iowa has one of the highest rates of pensioners of any state, which is pretty crucial since age seems to be the most crucial predictor of whether people go for Clinton or Sanders.
Posted by: Qassändra 6th February 2016, 10:07 PM
The theory that "Iowa was one of Sanders's best states" is based on the assumption that Sanders' ONLY appeal to is to highly-educated liberal white people (the "Guardianista" equivalents) but he wouldn't be getting close to 40% in national polls if he hadn't expanded his support base beyond that. Plus, apart from anything else, Iowa has one of the highest rates of pensioners of any state, which is pretty crucial since age seems to be the most crucial predictor of whether people go for Clinton or Sanders.
Well like you say - it's age that's Clinton's firewall, not (just) race. I still don't think the path is there anymore now. Clinton already has half of the 713 superdelegates (15% of the delegates in total), while Bernie has just 11, so he's running at a point where he'll need to be getting 60 percent of the elected delegates to get ahead of Hillary. He did so badly in Iowa relative to what he needed that it's already mathematically impossible for him to make up for it in New Hampshire to get to the cumulative total of where he'd need to be by that stage to be on track for nomination.
Essentially, it would need Bernie to be at a point where he was landsliding his favourable states and getting really solid 5-10 point wins elsewhere to make the delegate maths work. I just don't see there being enough of a view shift for him to be leading that much, that consistently.
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th February 2016, 11:12 PM
Essentially, it would need Bernie to be at a point where he was landsliding his favourable states and getting really solid 5-10 point wins elsewhere to make the delegate maths work. I just don't see there being enough of a view shift for him to be leading that much, that consistently.
I still think Clinton will win the nomination, but I assume the super delegates who have stated a preference could yet change their minds. If, for example, Sanders was winning 60% of the vote in primaries (I don't think that will happen, but bear with me), would the super delegates want to use their power to overrule that result? Surely that is a surefire way of triggering a massive row within the party.
Posted by: Qassändra 6th February 2016, 11:24 PM
I don't know for sure, but what do you think Labour Party superdelegates made up of party grandees would've done if they had the power to overrule the Corbyn result?
(Not that Sanders is quite as bad, but we are talking about a man who isn't even a member of the Democrats here and who has basically zero endorsements so I imagine opinion of him in the Democratic upper echelons is roughly equivalent.)
Posted by: Suedehead2 6th February 2016, 11:30 PM
We'll see whether Labour MPs choose to oust Corbyn, that being the nearest equivalent to the super delegates. There must be plenty of MPs who are reluctant to make a move because of the overwhelming nature of his victory.
Posted by: Qassändra 7th February 2016, 12:21 AM
Ah, that wasn't my question. There's a very different dynamic between preventing someone being chosen as the leader and actively ousting them once they already are the leader. The superdelegates will be in the former position.
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th February 2016, 12:27 AM
But the super delegates will know how the elected delegates are split. So, the difference becomes one between vetoing a decision or overturning one that has already been made.
Posted by: Qassändra 7th February 2016, 12:34 AM
Which is still a different dynamic to actively ousting a leader. If Labour Party superdelegates had had the power to overturn Corbyn for Burnham (or rather, if the electoral college had still been in place), there's no doubt they'd have done it.
Posted by: Common Sense 7th February 2016, 09:35 AM
Been perusing several US election forums and reading the so-called "experts" comments and the general opinion is that Hillary will get the nomination but would lose the election to Rubio, but not to any other Republican.
Posted by: Common Sense 7th February 2016, 09:35 AM
DELETED
Posted by: Common Sense 7th February 2016, 09:40 AM
(Not that Sanders is quite as bad, but we are talking about a man who isn't even a member of the Democrats here and who has basically zero endorsements so I imagine opinion of him in the Democratic upper echelons is roughly equivalent.)
Had to laugh at one comment I read. "He's too old, looks like he needs a Dr. any minute and probably won't know who he is in a couple of years so better pick his running mate well if he gets nominated."
Posted by: Qassändra 7th February 2016, 02:30 PM
Pleasingly, Rubio's just imploded in debate *.*
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/rubio-implodes-in-new-hampshire-debate.html#
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 7th February 2016, 02:39 PM
But Corbyn has a real chance of winning the next election too, given his youth vote popularity. It could be like Reagen Thatcher all over again but the opposite way!
Posted by: Suedehead2 7th February 2016, 02:41 PM
I love the way Rubio attacks Obama for wanting to change the country. Perhaps a candidate should try saying
Not very inspiring, is it?
Posted by: Qassändra 7th February 2016, 03:10 PM
You really don't understand how elections work, do you.
The fact that there are far, far fewer young people than older people (don't know if you heard, but contraception kind of became a thing in the 60s and the birth rate collapsed) aside, I'll just leave this here as a basic primer on why the myth of youth turnout driving progressive landslides is just that - a myth. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11390724/The-charts-that-reveal-what-would-happen-if-more-young-people-voted.html
It's because of the above that there has never been a single election in the developed world where a candidate won on the *sole* basis of their popularity with young voters. Without other age groups backing you, you will not win. Also going to take this moment to reaffirm that, shockingly enough, when young voters grow up, get a job, get a family and become broadly okay with their lot in life, some (not all) tend to take a slightly different view on utopian political candidates/propositions. As a result, youth voters overwhelmingly agreeing with a political candidate/proposition isn't necessarily a sign that it's going to be all the rage in twenty years' time either.
Posted by: Danny 7th February 2016, 04:10 PM
Not very inspiring, is it?
To be fair, he's not actually saying changing the country is a bad thing per se, he's just trying to rebuff one of the attack lines some of the other Republicans are throwing at him. There's been talk that Rubio would be "another Obama" in that he's an amateur with little executive experience; Rubio's counter to that is that Obama's problem isn't that he was an amateur who didn't know how to implement anything, it's that (in his view) the things he's trying to implement are wrong.
That said, that clip will still probably go down as Rubio's "these strikes are WRONG" moment.
Posted by: Qassändra 7th February 2016, 04:22 PM
I don't think it's quite as killer as that, but I hope it's enough to puncture his tyres before New Hampshire and give the likes of Kasich or Christie an in which drags out the 'first amongst 'moderates'' title.
Posted by: Qassändra 9th February 2016, 04:25 PM
My prediction for New Hampshire today: 20 point Sandslide.
Trump wins for the GOP but Kasich comes second (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE)
Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th February 2016, 06:50 PM
Are we assuming that if the GOP moderates take it in turns to get a shock good result then it'll end up with none of them getting the nomination?
Posted by: Qassändra 9th February 2016, 07:00 PM
That's what I'm SAYING MY PRAYERS for
Posted by: 152chris 9th February 2016, 07:10 PM
then what happens??
Posted by: Bré 9th February 2016, 08:29 PM
Then Trump wins and gets obliterated in November. I assume.
Posted by: Qassändra 9th February 2016, 08:56 PM
Nah, Cruz.
Posted by: 152chris 9th February 2016, 09:01 PM
oh lol wait i skipped the word 'moderates' MY BAD
Posted by: 152chris 9th February 2016, 09:23 PM
P.S.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th February 2016, 10:20 PM
So Bernie is starting to slay :/
Posted by: Qassändra 10th February 2016, 01:26 AM
Also gonna whack round this thing that's been going about for the last couple of weeks as a reminder before people start getting carried away: the delegate route that each candidate needs to be meeting to get 50% of the delegates (before considering superdelegates, so really Bernie's would have to be substantially outstripping his total by a couple of hundred at some point along this to still get nominated at current superdelegate rates). The candidate beating their total at a given point should be taken as the frontrunner at that point.
As a reminder, Hillary got more than her required cumulative total after New Hampshire with her Iowa total alone - 23.
Posted by: Danny 10th February 2016, 01:59 AM
Again though, this idea that Sanders' only chances of winning states were in Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't make sense: he wouldn't've pulled to within a few % of Clinton in the national polls if he wasn't in pole position in a lot of states.
Posted by: Danny 10th February 2016, 02:00 AM
It's also just been said on CNN that Sanders is beating Clinton by 2:1 among blue-collar white workers. He's gone well beyond just the "Guardianista" middle-class types.
Posted by: Qassändra 10th February 2016, 09:09 AM
There's winning in a lot of states and winning by enough in a lot of states. Also worth adding that the views of white working class voters aren't immutable - a 2:1 margin in the state Sanders bet the farm on doesn't necessarily mean he'll be racking up those margins with white working class voters in, say, South Carolina.
Posted by: Qassändra 10th February 2016, 10:51 PM
The result in New Hampshire: Clinton 9, Sanders 15. So despite the Sanders landslide, Clinton still got the number of delegates she'd need to be on track for nomination - on top of outperforming her target in Iowa.
Posted by: Qween 10th February 2016, 11:54 PM
That table is really interesting and also should be pretty solid proof that even if Bernie beats her in a decent number of states (which, he clearly will do at this stage) it won't be by margins big enough to beat her overall. Which is good. I just hope the prolonged nature of this won't hurt her too much in the general.
Posted by: Danny 11th February 2016, 12:57 AM
As Suedehead has said though, that table is based on the very dubious assumption that superdelegates' votes can't change.
If anything, I would say that if (IF!) Sanders finishes ahead of Clinton in the primaries, it would be more likely that the Establishment would draft Joe Biden or possibly Elizabeth Warren as a "compromise" candidate. There is no way the superdelegates could justify imposing Clinton on the party as a candidate if she'd just been rejected by the party's own voters.
Posted by: Qassändra 11th February 2016, 11:35 AM
The table doesn't account for superdelegates - that's just the route they'd both need to get 50% of the elected delegates. Hence, Sanders would need to get more than that to *guarantee* nomination. Superdelegates votes can change, but I think it's very unlikely so many would change that Sanders would take a lead among the superdelegates.
Posted by: 🌚🌚🌚 11th February 2016, 11:50 AM
Posted by: FezVez 11th February 2016, 06:01 PM
If anything, I would say that if (IF!) Sanders finishes ahead of Clinton in the primaries, it would be more likely that the Establishment would draft Joe Biden or possibly Elizabeth Warren as a "compromise" candidate. There is no way the superdelegates could justify imposing Clinton on the party as a candidate if she'd just been rejected by the party's own voters.
You mean a party would be allowed to do this? Select someone for the nomination who wasn't even a candidate in the primaries?
Posted by: Qassändra 11th February 2016, 06:10 PM
It's possible but it hasn't been done in a very, very long time - not since 1952 for the Democrats. It hasn't been done for a winning candidate since 1932.
Posted by: Danny 11th February 2016, 06:36 PM
If it's in the hands of the superdelegates (i.e. neither candidate has gained an overall majority from pledged delegates awarded from the results of the primaries alone), then yes.
If Clinton wins the primaries anyway then it isn't an issue, she'll be the nominee regardless. But if she loses to Sanders then, as I say, they just couldn't have a candidate who had actually been beaten roundly beaten -- even leaving aside the fact that Sanders supporters would be furious and possibly wouldn't turn out for the general election in November, it would also feed into one of the most damaging lines of attack about Clinton with the general public, that she's corrupt ("she even gets her cronies to bend the rules for her when she loses an election").
Posted by: Qassändra 11th February 2016, 10:23 PM
In this unlikely scenario, I think the turnout thing would be dependent on who the Republican candidate was. If it were Trump/Cruz I could see it being similar to when Chirac and Le Pen ended up in the run-off, for Democrats at least.
Posted by: Suedehead2 14th February 2016, 12:27 PM
Antonin Scalia, a right-wing member of the US Supreme Court has died. Barack Obama will get the opportunity to nominate a replacement, but the Republican-dominated Senate committee has to confirm the nomination.
Posted by: Silas 14th February 2016, 12:37 PM
Already the Republicans are climbing over one another to be the person that shouts the loudest about completely ignoring the right of the president, who is still in power for 11months regardless of the utter car crash that is the US presidential election, and demanding that the new pick be delayed 12 months. (Primarily so they can replace this homophobic racist pro-gun right wing nutbag with another one instead of someone who actually realises its the 21st century and not the 19th.)
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 17th February 2016, 01:24 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-nevada-poll/index.html
And there goes the southern firewall. I think it was short-sighted to dismiss the overall trend since last summer of moving to electing Bernie
Posted by: Qassändra 17th February 2016, 01:31 PM
Nevada wasn't the firewall - Bernie would need to be winning it by five delegates to be on track. The firewall is the states where Hillary needs to be winning to be on track.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 17th February 2016, 02:21 PM
It was the Southern Firewall of states going Hillary as the north is Bernie.
Posted by: Qassändra 17th February 2016, 02:23 PM
Nevada isn't considered 'the South' at all in a political sense. And again, that doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that it's a state Hillary can afford to lose narrowly on delegates and still be on track for 50%. Ergo, her tying there isn't a sign that the firewall has broken, even if Nevada were the firewall.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 17th February 2016, 03:08 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35546662
He is outfunding her too and building momentum.
Posted by: Silas 17th February 2016, 06:29 PM
South doesn't mean below the halfway line, it largely refers to the states that broke away to form the Confederate States of America in the civil war and the area aka the bible belt.
Nevada is neither of those things.
Posted by: Danny 17th February 2016, 08:00 PM
Nevada is neither of those things.
That's true as far as it goes, BUT Clinton's "firewall" wasn't thought to be just the South specifically, it was thought to be all the more ethnically-diverse states. Nevada is certainly one of those, it's white population is below the national average, and yet she's statistically tied.
If her "firewall" really is down to the states where black people make up 40% or more of the Democrat selectorate, then that's down to about 10 states (of which South Carolina is one).
Posted by: Steve201 19th February 2016, 12:35 AM
We are witnessing the end of the politico-ideological cycle opened by the victory of Ronald Reagan at the 1980 election with the success of Sanders even if he loses. Even Americans are concerned about inequality now.
Posted by: Qassändra 19th February 2016, 12:43 AM
You say that like neither Hillary nor Obama are concerned about inequality.
Posted by: Qassändra 20th February 2016, 10:36 PM
Nevada called early for Clinton. This was a state Sanders had to win and had to win by a decent margin - therefore making it one that was on paper more favourable to him anyway - so let's please bring an end to the 'SANDERS IS GOING TO WIN BY A LANDSLIDE' nonsense (naming no name).
Posted by: Danny 20th February 2016, 11:09 PM
I do admire how shameless your goalpost-moving is.
Posted by: Qassändra 20th February 2016, 11:22 PM
I do admire how shameless your goalpost-moving is.I'm not! I've stayed pretty constant in taking the Cook delegates projection as a base - if Sanders was going to stand a chance of winning the nomination, he *had* to win a state where he needed to beat Hillary by five delegates in order to get 50/50 on pledged delegates overall (without even considering superdelegates). I appreciate that wasn't *your* argument, but it's one being raised as a realistic prospect here by some and a lot on social media/actual media. I still think Hillary has this tied up, but so long as some people will argue that a Sanders win is at all a realistic outcome I will point out exactly why it isn't.
Things have obviously shifted from him only standing a chance in Iowa or New Hampshire, but then the debate over what outcome Sanders can expect has shifted as well. Given Clinton's winning easily in states he'd have to win comfortably to stand a chance I can't see him winning that many though.
And yeah, the whole 'this shows the mood of the base' thing is still apt, but the problem I have is that it's something Hillary has responded a lot to - read a lot of her current positions on paper and it's not anything most Sanders supporters would disagree with. A lot of the current criticisms of Hillary are downright unfair in terms of what anyone could realistically do to allay them, because so many of them are personalised. 'You seem untrustworthy', 'you changed positions on XYZ in the past', 'you'll just say anything to get elected' - also a lot of the time based on things plenty of other politicians have done which they haven't taken anywhere near as much stick and vitriol on. The other big irony is that the only realistic answer for what could allay Sanders supporters professing to be displeased with Hillary (i.e., Clinton taking on his positions wholesale) would just affirm all of those criticisms!
Posted by: Steve201 20th February 2016, 11:48 PM
The point was clearly made with reference to the electorate.
I'm sure even Reegan would argue he cared about inequality, doesn't mean you will do anything radical to prevent it.
Posted by: Qassändra 20th February 2016, 11:52 PM
Reagan made a pretty big point of not caring about inequality! His gig was kind of based on the whole 'you reap what you sow' thing.
Posted by: Steve201 20th February 2016, 11:56 PM
If asked face to face he would t say that though, my point being you can say you care about it all you want but don't bother doing anything about it.
Posted by: Suedehead2 21st February 2016, 09:47 AM
Jeb Bush has dropped out. Well, that was humiliating
Posted by: popchartfreak 21st February 2016, 10:05 AM
I'd give 3 cheers as payback for the loss of 2000 to his idiot chard-hugging brother winning were it not for the fact that 3 frontrunners are now infinitely worse than JB
Posted by: Steve201 21st February 2016, 11:39 PM
Sanders has done ok in Nevada, he may not win now but at least he has helped the debate in the Democratic Party!
Posted by: Common Sense 24th February 2016, 08:42 AM
Another win for Trump! Super-Tuesday next week.
Posted by: popchartfreak 24th February 2016, 10:29 AM
Or as I prefer to think of it, Apocalypse Tuesday, as simple folk who have no knowledge of the world, politics or running a country or anything much help select a nasty vindictive super-rich selfish spoilt idiot to make the USA a better place. America, where any rich brat can grow up to be the most powerful man in the world, and any non-millionaire can't.
Just saying....
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 24th February 2016, 12:33 PM
Sanders meanwhile is slaying and so we'll have a battle of the outsiders.
Posted by: Oliver 24th February 2016, 01:09 PM
Is he SLAYING though? Last time I checked Hilary had 52 pledged delegates and Sanders 51.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 24th February 2016, 01:35 PM
Trends, Oli Oli, trends! He is up to 90% in some states. Hillary has divided the base and wouldn't even win with Trump even if she scraped the nomination which she won't now the trend is clear.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 24th February 2016, 03:31 PM
Where?
Posted by: Oliver 24th February 2016, 03:57 PM
In the most recent Democratic nationwide aggregate polls Clinton has at least a 5% lead over Sanders, so if he is over 90% in some states then that would probably indicate that Clinton is over 90% in other states?
Posted by: LexDANCE 24th February 2016, 04:27 PM
Well you know Michael, never one to let facts get in the way of grand sweeping generalisations.
The more and more this goes on, the more I think it's going to be a Clinton v Trump race which scares me, for reasons I explained a few pages back.
Posted by: Iz~ 24th February 2016, 04:42 PM
The more Trump goes on actually getting the votes the more that's starting to worry me too. And I was thinking a month or so ago that Clinton would be the safe option against him.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 24th February 2016, 05:12 PM
90% in Vermont and rapidly catching up in every single stae that isn't North Carolina, overtaking her in aggregate polls recently AND coming from a 50 point disadvantage AND with more donations AND with more grassroots campaigns AND more social and media presence ...
These trends are very clear. He will get he nomination or at least divide the base so much, going to a brokered convention, which supports Hills, that it practically gifts the presidency to Trump.
Posted by: Qassändra 24th February 2016, 09:22 PM
These trends are very clear. He will get he nomination or at least divide the base so much, going to a brokered convention, which supports Hills, that it practically gifts the presidency to Trump.
After all, I'm a stone heavier than I was last year, so I'm obviously going to be 50 stone heavier in fifty years.
Posted by: Qween 24th February 2016, 09:33 PM
Bernie Sanders being at 90% in the polls IN HIS OWN STATE. Well, if ever there was proof he's slaying and definitely going to win the nomination......
Fact is (and I do mean FACT, not blindly ignoring the actual polling and creating our own dream world statistics) Hilary is ahead in most states according to the polls, and those he is ahead in by and large have a low delegate count so the electoral maths doesn't really add up. 90% in Vermont is pretty miniscule in the grand scheme of things if she is 10% ahead in Texas, for example.
Posted by: Qween 24th February 2016, 09:43 PM
But yes, the longer this goes on the more I worry about a Trump V Clinton match up. In every way she would be the obvious, sensible choice but pragmatism and level headedness isn't as cool nor does it excite people in the same way as Trump's particular brand of politics does. If Bernie does drag this out until June then they could also risk dividing the Democratic base too, further weakening her chances. It's definitely interesting to watch unfold, but also the reality of what might be is a fairly sobering thought too.
Posted by: Steve201 24th February 2016, 10:03 PM
If Clinton does get there her moderate positions will easily beat Trump in a general election!
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 24th February 2016, 10:31 PM
Fact is (and I do mean FACT, not blindly ignoring the actual polling and creating our own dream world statistics) Hilary is ahead in most states according to the polls, and those he is ahead in by and large have a low delegate count so the electoral maths doesn't really add up. 90% in Vermont is pretty miniscule in the grand scheme of things if she is 10% ahead in Texas, for example.
But he is catching up in all states + momentum + trends so ...
And nope. Kerry had moderate positions but had a TRUST problem like Hillary does but Hillary has the added problem of a divided base.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 24th February 2016, 10:32 PM
It's already divided. He has the youth vote who will stay at home if he doesn't win!
Welcome welcome to the 1st of 8 years of President Trump (unless Sanders gets it).
You read it here first.
PsychicBeaver.
Posted by: Suedehead2 24th February 2016, 11:02 PM
Last night's episode of Back In Time For The Weekend gave some of us a reminder of how scary things got at times in the 1980s with Reagan and Thatcher in charge. It's far more frightening to think that, in a year's time, it could be Trump and Boris "The Narcissist" Johnson.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 24th February 2016, 11:05 PM
Or Bernie and Corbyn - Corbyn who goes for issues, Call Me Dave and Jeremy Government Dirty Business Tory Boy going on about expensive suits to cover their dirty NhS sell off.
Interesting:
http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency
Posted by: Qassändra 24th February 2016, 11:28 PM
Welcome welcome to the 1st of 8 years of President Trump (unless Sanders gets it).
You read it here first.
PsychicBeaver.
LOL. Yeah, because 20 year olds who love Bernie are really going to stay at home when faced with the prospect of an open racist being President.
Not that it would be the youth vote staying home that would be the difference in that scenario in any case. Elections don't get decided by one of the least populous age demographic groups and one proportionally least likely to turn out.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 25th February 2016, 01:39 PM
Welcome welcome to the 1st of 8 years of President You-Know-Who (unless Sanders gets it).
You read it here first.
PsychicBeaver.
Sorry, would you be actually pleased by that?
Posted by: Qassändra 25th February 2016, 01:42 PM
No, he's just pretending to be an oracle.
Posted by: Danny 25th February 2016, 01:45 PM
Clinton would definitely have her hands full with Trump.
The problem is that, for all the valid talk of the US getting more ethnically diverse, most of the key swing states still have higher-than-average white working-class populations: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
The only swing states with major numbers of Trump-allergic groups are Virginia and Florida. [There's Nevada and New Mexico which also have high Latino populations, but they account for sod all votes in the Electoral College between them.]
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 25th February 2016, 01:46 PM
No.
It's just fact.
Posted by: Qassändra 25th February 2016, 02:03 PM
The problem is that, for all the valid talk of the US getting more ethnically diverse, most of the key swing states still have higher-than-average white working-class populations: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
The only swing states with major numbers of Trump-allergic groups are Virginia and Florida. [There's Nevada and New Mexico which also have high Latino populations, but they account for sod all votes in the Electoral College between them.]
They do, but you're only considering one side of the ledger here. On one hand you may have a lot of disillusioned white working class voters who might consider Trump. On the other you'll have plenty of 'independent' voters (the type who backed Romney) who think Trump too gauche, vulgar and unpresidential, without getting onto his sexism and racism. He's got the highest negative ratings of any prospective presidential candidate ever with a majority of Americans disapproving of him *already* - not really the best grounds for going into a two-way race.
It's also worth considering that Trump hasn't really had the full weight of attack against him at all - save the odd Ted Cruz advert about eminent domain (!) and people criticising him for not being conservative enough, he's got off remarkably easily so far. The head of Jeb Bush's PAC spent more on his own wages in one year than he did on adverts attacking Trump!
Posted by: Danny 25th February 2016, 04:18 PM
His ratings are barely any worse than Clinton's.
Already, there's state polls putting Trump ahead of Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Posted by: Danny 25th February 2016, 04:30 PM
Last Quinnipiac poll:
General Public
Clinton -21 rating (37% favourable, 58% unfavourable)
Trump -20 rating (37% favourable, 57% unfavourable)
Independent voters
Clinton -30 rating (31% favourable, 61% unfavourable)
Trump -25 rating (34% favourable, 59% unfavourable)
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/us/us02182016_Urpfd42.pdf
Posted by: Soy Adrián 25th February 2016, 04:30 PM
Already, there's state polls putting You-Know-Who ahead of Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
That's worrying, but Clinton's dirty laundry has had a lot more airing than Trump's so far.
Posted by: Qassändra 25th February 2016, 04:44 PM
And Clinton's favourability ratings tend to be a fair bit higher than Trump's in polling averages, rather than just individual ones. He's typically low to mid 30s versus Hillary who tends to be low to mid 40s.
The other side of the coin is that he'd also likely drive Democratic turnout (although granted, Hillary would do the same for Republicans) - he has the worst net ratings amongst identified Democrats of any Republican candidate.
(If nothing else, it'd be a hell of a deathmatch.)
Posted by: Oliver 28th February 2016, 07:32 AM
Clinton has won South Carolina with an almost 50% margin (73.5 to 26 I believe). More than Obama's margin 8 years ago against Hilary herself.
Posted by: Qween 28th February 2016, 10:12 AM
That Bernie momentum just won't let up! Most of the recent polling had her in around 65% so that'[s an excellent result, especially going forward to Super Tuesday. Not that she would have been struggling there anyway, but if Sanders ends up being badly berned again then that can only be a good thing.
Posted by: Steve201 28th February 2016, 04:10 PM
A good thing for Clinton and Social Democrats, maybe a bad thing for people who are struggling in the survival of the fittest capitalist system in the long run.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 1st March 2016, 11:15 AM
Super Tuesday today!
For a few days there after reading a wrong source I thought only a few Democratic primaries wre gonna be held.
Today we find out if Trump will win!
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-02-29/super-tuesday-predictions-point-to-trump-clinton-rout
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 1st March 2016, 11:19 AM
The trend might have reversed according to that page.
Posted by: Qween 1st March 2016, 04:50 PM
There's a good article here about it: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/super-tuesday-preview-democratic-presidential-election-2016/ (with a link to the GOP one for anyone interested).
Basically highlights all the relevant info, where they are currently polling in each state, where they need to be to keep on track for the nomination and the number of delegates they would ideally get for that too. Sanders is behind his target in almost all of them, even the likes of Massachusetts which is one he really needs to be winning if the delegate maths want to have any chance of adding up to winning. It looks like it could end up being about 500-520 for Clinton and 360-380 for Sanders, basically.
Posted by: Qassändra 1st March 2016, 05:02 PM
Well it's not like ANYBODY SAW THAT COMING
Posted by: Oliver 2nd March 2016, 12:02 AM
Georgia and Virginia to Clinton, Vermont to Sanders according to ABC News.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd March 2016, 12:04 AM
All is as it should be!
Posted by: Qween 2nd March 2016, 12:06 AM
Well, as expected there then. Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Colorado will be more interesting.
Posted by: Oliver 2nd March 2016, 12:13 AM
Exit polls are suggesting that things are a lot closer today for the Republicans than recent polling suggested.
"Too close to call" in both Virginia and Vermont.
Posted by: Iz~ 2nd March 2016, 12:24 AM
I feel Clinton will be doing very well out of this and lose only Vermont to Sanders. Which will naturally make the whole two-horse race thing over.
For the Republicans, they probably have the more interesting day, as this will confirm whether we're expecting a Trump victory or not. If it is too close to call that's got to be bad news for him, right?
Posted by: Oliver 2nd March 2016, 12:28 AM
Very early results coming in for Georgia have Clinton 51% ahead and for Virginia, a 35% lead. Still about 98% of votes still to come through though!
Posted by: Qween 2nd March 2016, 01:03 AM
Clinton has won Tennessee and Alabama too, the two closer states though (Mass and Oklahoma) haven't been called either way yet obv.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd March 2016, 07:25 AM
Rubio must be furious with Kasich. Losing to Trump by three points in Virginia, one of the few states where a win could've been spun as a sign he was still competitive. Kasich got nearly ten percent there.
Posted by: Qween 2nd March 2016, 09:23 AM
So Sanders won Oklahoma, Minnesota, Vermont and Colorado in the end. Looks like he stopped Clinton getting the 15% needed to get any delegates in Vermont too.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd March 2016, 09:58 AM
Oop. Sooo Sanders still on track for nomination and winning the actual blue states.
Posted by: Bré 2nd March 2016, 10:13 AM
Seems like a decent enough result for Bernie, he wasn't far off taking Massachusetts too - other than that all the states Clinton won were in the bag for her already (since the black vote is clearly not being swayed at all), whereas at least according to what I've read the Sanders victories bar Vermont were much more up in the air, and he won them all fairly comfortably. Hillary still the favourite but I don't think Bernie has completely faceplanted just yet. There are more favourable states for him from here on out.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd March 2016, 10:23 AM
Yeah, that isn't how the nomination works.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd March 2016, 10:45 AM
If we're talking in terms of standing a chance of nomination, even accounting for the fact they weren't favourable, he still fell far short of where he needed to be delegates-wise for each state, even in the ones he won. New Hampshire's the only one where he's met the target so far, along with probably Vermont.
Posted by: Oliver 2nd March 2016, 11:00 AM
The rest of March looks very favourable for Clinton as well. Polls are putting her at least 10% ahead in nearly all the remaining states this month (Maine has Bernie with a 1% lead and Nebraska hasn't been polled it doesn't look like).
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd March 2016, 11:41 AM
But after March + the trend the states go for Bernie :/
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd March 2016, 11:48 AM
I'm just wondering what Michael's excuse is going to be when it becomes official that Bernie isn't the nominee.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 2nd March 2016, 11:50 AM
The trend is v obvious though!
He is winning the same states as Barack - ie the states Democrats win elections in!! Texas for example isn't going blue.
Posted by: Qween 2nd March 2016, 11:56 AM
At this stage though, that makes NO DIFFERENCE. If he doesn't win enough delegates now (and he isn't, he's not reached his 'target' in more than a few and Clinton has exceeded hers handily in almost all of them, making his targets even HIGHER going forward) then what colour the state is in the general means absolutely sod all.
Posted by: Iz~ 2nd March 2016, 11:59 AM
Plus, surely if he wins very little by the end of March it should be nearly impossible to come back from or have it look to anyone that he can still come from behind and win this.
Kasich still being in the race is fascinating. Although disastrous for Rubio. But really strange that he's held on this long. I wouldn't be that surprised at this rate if Rubio drops out before he does.
Posted by: Qween 2nd March 2016, 12:04 PM
This page explains it all pretty perfectly http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/. There's a table at the bottom which shows what Tirren linked to before about the numbers each of them would be getting to take it a delegate draw. Sanders has only met his target in Vermont, Oklahoma and New Hampshire.
As is stands from Super Tuesday, in terms of what Sanders has/'needs':
Alabama 4/18
Arkansas 7/14
Colorado 33/36
Georgia 23/37
Massachusetts 43/50
Minnesota 42/47
Oklahoma 20/20
Tennessee 22/34
Texas 48/96
Vermont 10/16 (so far, but it'll probably be all 16 in the end)
Virginia 32/43
Now not every delegate has been awarded yet, but you get the idea. Or at least, it should be obvious on a simple mathematical/factual level anyway. He's likely to win Kansas and Nebraska at the weekend, but given Clinton will likely beat him by a large margin in Lousiana he probably won't catch up very much even if decimates her in those two. Then the rest of March, bar Maine, Missouri and maybe Ohio looks like more solid Clinton territory. So like Iz says, pretty soon it becomes a case of needing to win BIG in EVERY state just to keep pace, let alone move ahead.
Posted by: Qassändra 2nd March 2016, 12:19 PM
He is winning the same states as Barack - ie the states Democrats win elections in!! Texas for example isn't going blue.
He's won three of the eight states Obama had won that have happened this point. Even if we were going by the token of 'winning the same states as Barack' (which still doesn't matter, as Bernie's getting crushed in all the ones he isn't winning, which Obama wasn't, and Bernie's not getting loads of delegates in the ones he is winning, which Obama was), Hillary would still be winning.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 2nd March 2016, 01:35 PM
Regarding the whole "he's winning the seats that the Democrats actually win" - so?
The Democrat membership will be markedly different in terms of demographics and views to the electorate as a whole in virtually every state. The swing voters who could win Ohio for him against Clinton aren't the same ones who would have to vote for him to win Ohio against Trump or any other Republican.
Posted by: Oliver 2nd March 2016, 03:12 PM
Unless the polls change dramatically or Sanders concedes early I can see it lasting the distance, with Clinton probably passing the benchmark on 7th June.
Posted by: Silas 2nd March 2016, 06:17 PM
In the states that actually mattered yesterday, Hills won them all. She thrashed Bern in the 3 biggest states yesterday really boosting her numbers. Bern is predicted to be stronger mostly in the smaller states that Hilary's landslides in Texas and Georgia made completely irrelevant already.
Posted by: Danny 3rd March 2016, 02:39 AM
Although Clinton is certainly going to be the nominee (unless she's indicted over the e-mail scandal), I think you can now make a serious case that Sanders would've been a stronger candidate for the Democrats than Clinton will be. The argument that "Bernie is winning in the Democrat states" isn't relevant to the nomination itself since all states are equal in that, but it IS relevant in terms of who would have the best chance in November, and it is true that Sanders is either winning or tying in most of the swing states (bar Virginia).
Then there's the polling which is constantly showing Sanders runs better against all Republican candidates than Clinton does. Until recently I would've dismissed it on the basis that a lot of people didn't know who Sanders was (people were maybe just treating him as a "generic Democrat" and projecting whatever they wanted onto him). but he and his views have become more well known now and yet if anything his standing in the general election match-ups is improving.
While the bit in bold is right, if anything that favours Sanders more. Clinton is being powered by black voters who are by far the most in-the-bag for the Democrats no matter who the candidate is, while Sanders is being powered by low-income white voters who are at major risk of defecting to Trump en masse.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 3rd March 2016, 08:54 AM
Then there's the polling which is constantly showing Sanders runs better against all Republican candidates than Clinton does. Until recently I would've dismissed it on the basis that a lot of people didn't know who Sanders was (people were maybe just treating him as a "generic Democrat" and projecting whatever they wanted onto him). but he and his views have become more well known now and yet if anything his standing in the general election match-ups is improving.
While the bit in bold is right, if anything that favours Sanders more. Clinton is being powered by black voters who are by far the most in-the-bag for the Democrats no matter who the candidate is, while Sanders is being powered by low-income white voters who are at major risk of defecting to Drumpf en masse.
Equally you could argue that Sanders is being propped up by young liberals who will vote Democrat no matter what, while Hillary is being supported by moderates who might think Trump could run the economy better. Neither is entirely accurate, but it illustrates why it's hard to say who would be a better bet.
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 09:30 AM
Sanders hasn't really been subjected to any substantial attack though, so it would likely change pretty quickly in a general election scenario. Pretty much all the negativity Hillary could get is priced in at this point.
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 09:33 AM
The sample size is still far too small to draw anything from that, given Bernie has won one swing state he isn't neighbouring solidly.
That said I'd add that (in addition to Nevada and Virginia) Georgia went solidly for Hillary, and I wouldn't totally rule out the Democrats from being competitive there with Trump.
Posted by: Danny 3rd March 2016, 12:49 PM
She's not though: Sanders is winning with moderates and independents, and with the low-income white voters who decide elections.
Admittedly Clinton is generally winning with the high-income voters (who presumably don't like the sound of being taxed more by Sanders, but vote Democrat because they're socially liberal) - they might have been at risk of going to the Republicans if Bush or maybe Rubio had been the nominee, but they're probably safer for the Democrats if Trump is the nominee and insulting immigrants and women all the time.
He might not have been attacked as such, but his views have still got a lot of airtime - and yet his polling figures against Republicans and his general approval ratings are still MUCH better than Clinton's. Like I say, I would've agreed they didn't matter much a few months ago when Sanders would've been a blank canvas for a lot of voters, but not now.
As much as the Establishment in every Western country doesn't want to hear it, Corbyn politics without the batshit foreign/defence policies is potentially a winner.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 3rd March 2016, 12:53 PM
Yup, Corbyn politics are veeery popular right now with the PEOPLE but not with the Establishment or the media that works for it.
The only hope for the Democrats now is a superticket, Sanders/Clinton or Clinton/Sanders.
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 01:00 PM
Uh, no. He has the worst net popularity ratings of any leader of the Opposition ever. That is not the sign of someone who is 'very popular with the people'. The people who like him really like him. The many more that do not really do not. You can say that's down to the 'biased media' or whatever, but that isn't the sign of someone 'popular with the people' if they're buying it.
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 01:09 PM
Admittedly Clinton is generally winning with the high-income voters (who presumably don't like the sound of being taxed more by Sanders, but vote Democrat because they're socially liberal) - they might have been at risk of going to the Republicans if Bush or maybe Rubio had been the nominee, but they're probably safer for the Democrats if Trump is the nominee and insulting immigrants and women all the time.
Sanders isn't winning with self-identified moderate Democrats is he? High income and BAME Democrats isn't a wide enough coalition on its own to get Hillary the results she's had so far.
The views themselves have had airtime, but Hillary hasn't really gone on the attack on his views from a conservative angle (given it would be totally toxic for her in uniting the party after) beyond saying he's single issue (not in itself a critique of the position) or that it's unrealistic (not all that common an attack from her either). That wouldn't be the case in a general election scenario, and I can bet Sanders wouldn't be anywhere near as popular after two months of attack ads on how much his plan would cost the average American.
Most of what your average American will have heard so far from Sanders is something that won't be in itself something many people would hate him on - that society is stitched up for the 1% at the top, and the establishment and the big banks need breaking up. I don't think as many will be aware of his detailed tax plan that he's already released which...doesn't just stop at the 1%, let's put it that way. All well and good to argue for it, but I don't think it's going to leave his ratings intact.
It may well be! But I don't think Sanders has a clue on how to actually make any of it happen beyond just having the position. So long as the Republicans control Congress, the presidency is for all intents and purposes a foreign policy position with the odd executive order possibility, unless you have the know-how on how to work with Congress in brokering a deal. I think Hillary has that experience and ability more than Sanders has.
Posted by: Oliver 3rd March 2016, 01:12 PM
Won't all the young liberals (especially if Bernie loses and tells them to vote for Clinton) vote for Clinton in the main election to make sure that Trump doesn't become President? I've been reading a lot about Sanders' supporters not voting if he isn't the democrat nominee, but I can't see that in the slightest with the thought of Trump looming in the distance. I know if I was a Bernie supporter I would be first in line to vote for Clinton if it meant keeping Trump out. 
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 01:19 PM
Even if 2000 hadn't made third party voting a little more of a cautionary tale (and given Dubya was running as a compassionate conservative at the time it really did make it look like there wasn't that much difference between Gore and Bush. Another cautionary tale there on taking that sort of positioning at face value from either the left or right), I just don't see that many Bernie supporters really will stay at home when faced with the prospect of an open racist as president.
Particularly also as in practice it hasn't been that divisive or dirty a fight between Bernie and Hillary. Despite the online supporter warring, Hillary really hasn't gone hardball in attacks on Bernie - she hasn't said anything so outright attacking that it would disqualify her to many Bernie supporters in terms of her values.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 3rd March 2016, 02:05 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/super-tuesday-exit-polls/index.html
According to this poll most Democrats wouñd be happy with either choice - even more reason for a party-uniting superticket, uniting the left and moderate sides.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 3rd March 2016, 02:10 PM
He'd be an awful lot better at it than an actual Corbyn-type figure would be (because let's face it, they're really not that alike), which is why I'd be vocally backing him if he was still in with a shout of winning the nomination.
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 02:49 PM
It doesn't take much to be better than Corbyn at working with people.
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 03:10 PM
Gonna say now that Sanders would be a poor choice for VP. When one of the worries around your candidacy is age-based (Hillary would be the oldest president ever at time of inauguration), going for someone even older than you wouldn't really be fulfilling the basic function of what a VP is there for. The people supporting Bernie aren't so dim that they'd only accept Bernie himself as a VP candidate to be united behind the ticket - there are plenty of potential young VP candidates who could appeal to Bernie fans.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 3rd March 2016, 04:06 PM
Woudn't she be 2nd oldest?
Yeah but it would unite the two parts of the left - when the two parts are divided those are elections the left loses.
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 04:49 PM
She'd be older than Reagan was at inauguration - Reagan was 68, she'd be 69.
And you're missing my point that Bernie would not be the only VP candidate capable of uniting those two wings.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 3rd March 2016, 05:02 PM
Tell that to the, quite frankly desperate, Bernie Bros!!
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 05:10 PM
I mean if anything that wing makes a virtue of candidates just being a cipher for broader principles.
Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd March 2016, 07:29 PM
Particularly also as in practice it hasn't been that divisive or dirty a fight between Bernie and Hillary. Despite the online supporter warring, Hillary really hasn't gone hardball in attacks on Bernie - she hasn't said anything so outright attacking that it would disqualify her to many Bernie supporters in terms of her values.
Pretty much agree with all you say. Anyone leaning to the left is by definition anti-Trump. I don't think the redneck vote (which is what we're really talking about) would be inclined to follow any Democratic candidate. The question is can Trump get beyond his (obviously fairly big) fanbase of right-wing or disgruntled followers and convince a whole nation that a super-rich pouty, bullying, misogynistic, borderline-racist, borderline-zealot who's had no experience whatsoever in politics can be taken seriously as leader of the free world? One can only hope that the average American isn't as stupid as they are made out to be.
As I speak, Trump is ranting on and on about Clinton, Romney, and all very very personal remarks. The whole Republican side has degenerated into a slanging match about each other (and the rivals) rather than anything to do with actual potential policies and politics. Trump shows his true colours every time he opens his mouth and he will very definitely be a marmite candidate. How he can expect to govern when he's alienated his own party - Obama (very moderate and reasoned) struggled with the Republicans throughout - is looking like a major point of attack to me. He could end up a total lame (albeit mouthy) duck.
Posted by: Brett-Butler 3rd March 2016, 09:18 PM
He already has. Quite a large amount of self-described moderates have supported him if opinion polls are anything to go by. And more will do so once he tones down his rhetoric when he gets the nomination and moves towards the centre, which he inevitably will do up until he wins in November.
Posted by: Bré 3rd March 2016, 09:56 PM
Hasn't Trump been taking a pretty consistent percentage of the vote across all demographics? (In fact I'm pretty sure he's actually stronger with 'moderates' than the more extreme conservatives, though I don't think there are many actual moderates voting in the Republican primaries).
Posted by: Qassändra 3rd March 2016, 10:04 PM
Yeah, we're talking self-identified moderates by registered Republican standards here. I mean, when the self-identified conservatives are saying their issue with Trump is that his anti-immigration position is ALL TALK...
Posted by: popchartfreak 4th March 2016, 01:18 PM
I stand to be corrected here, but the polls about demographics seem to be among his voting supporters not the wider public at large. Some of the views expressed in some polls I've read are of the order of:
31% of Trump supporters think gays should be banned from entering the country.
54% of Trump supporters think islam should be banned in the USA.
Well, there goes my Florida holidays if he gets in power, eh?
Teaparty rednecks and religious zealots slagging off other religions. Pot calling the kettle I'd hazard a guess. On the plus side at least they aren't in favour of throwing gays off buildings (well, at least they weren't asked if they were in favour) and it's good to know that so many supporters of Donald Trump are prepared to say that the freedoms enshrined in the Declaration Of Independance need changing. Gives me real optimism about gun ownership - can't pick and choose which elements can be dropped after all if you choose to ignore one part of it. 
Posted by: Brett-Butler 4th March 2016, 01:26 PM
31% of Trump supporters think gays should be banned from entering the country.
54% of Trump supporters think islam should be banned in the USA.
Well, there goes my Florida holidays if he gets in power, eh?
Do you have a link to said opinion polls?
Posted by: Joe. 4th March 2016, 01:28 PM
I'm so glad my american holiday falls when Obama is, just about, still the president.
Posted by: Danny 5th March 2016, 12:49 AM
Maybe not Sanders himself, but I do think Clinton's vice president pick should be someone who appeals to white working-class men who is seen as "authentic". That would compensate for some of her big weaknesses vis-a-vis Trump. I would agree that young people, for all their lack of enthusiasm for Clinton, will probably turn out anyway if faced with Trump as the alternative, and Trump would probably also keep the Latinos safe for her too (so there would be little to gain from Julian Castro as the running mate).
I was going to say Jim Webb would be an ideal candidate for the VP spot, but I've just seen he said he'd vote for Trump over Hillary, so....
The Democrats really should be cursing John Edwards'.....lack of discipline, because he would be a good remedy for a lot of the Democrats' problems right now.
Posted by: Trashlexis 5th March 2016, 03:48 AM
Nobody who cared about their hair that much would be an obvious white working class gimme pick.
Posted by: Trashlexis 5th March 2016, 03:49 AM
That said I can't think of anyone in the Democrats who would be. Heidi Heitkamp?
Posted by: popchartfreak 5th March 2016, 03:35 PM
sorry I was flicking through a load at work (during lunch) and the one I looked at isn't cropping up when I google. It wasn't (I think) a major poll though, they were quoting opinions from as low as 100 or so Trump voters which is hardly representative - it was though the only one I came across that asked a large number of questions on many different issues. Most of the others just seem to focus on overall percentages of popularity, or break it down amongst regions or ethnic groups.
Newsnight interviewed some mountain folk about why he was so popular. Bottom line the poor have been hit hard by the banking crisis, the rich have all got away with everything and are even richer, the poor (who caused none of it) are fed up with the establishment, don't trust them and don't feel they are looking after their interests. This is pretty much across much of the western world. Sadly, politicians like to divert blame to immigrants as in some way being the source of all the ills, rather than the greedy selfish rich. Result: poorly-educated poor people in many countries are looking desperately for someone to turn back the clock to the good old days before 2008 and latch onto anyone who promises the world while kicking "the establishment" in the pants.
Posted by: B-rye 6th March 2016, 01:52 AM
Looking like a pretty bad night for Trump as Ted Cruz has won Kansas by a large margin and looks like winning Maine too. Please don't let a Cruz nomination still be on the cards. 
Posted by: Trashlexis 6th March 2016, 01:57 AM
Oh PLEASE DO
For all that Trump is super-toxic for the Republicans I do think there is more chance of him beating Hillary than Cruz has. Trump has turned having his cake and eating it into an art form, which is a dangerous skill to have. Cruz is pretty much defined into a rut, and it's one that's unlikely to get north of 200 electoral votes.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 6th March 2016, 09:24 AM
I would bite your hand off for a Cruz nomination. Tea Party politics is a known quantity so I can't see him shifting the debate to the right during the campaign in the same way that Trump could.
Posted by: Taylor Jago 6th March 2016, 07:36 PM
And you're missing my point that Bernie would not be the only VP candidate capable of uniting those two wings.
Reagan was 69 years, 349 days old at inauguration actually. Hilary Clinton would be 69 years, 86 days old, so second oldest at inauguration.
Posted by: Trashlexis 6th March 2016, 10:04 PM
Oh you're right! I'd calculated it as January 1980 rather than January 1981 for inauguration.
Even so, the point stands that going OLD AND OLDER for the ticket isn't a winning formula.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 6th March 2016, 11:21 PM
And splitting the party in two then not trying to bridge it after a VERY CLOSE and divided primary season is better...
Posted by: Trashlexis 6th March 2016, 11:22 PM
The gap between Hillary and Bernie on delegates now is larger than the gap between Obama and Hillary *ever* was in 2008, so no, it's not 'very close' at all. The party managed to get over Hillary not being the VP then - I'm sure it would be able to deal with a candidate from the progressive wing that wasn't basically on the VERGE OF DEATH getting the VP slot.
Posted by: B-rye 9th March 2016, 04:42 AM
Upset win for Sanders in Michigan! >99% chance of Hillary winning there per 538, Nate Silver calling it the biggest upset win in primary history.
On the flipside, he was absolutely demolished in Mississippi, barely even viable there, so he'll be even further back in delegates than he was before. But we are now pretty much done with the Deep South Clinton crushings, so maybe I can cling onto the hope that Michigan is a sign of things to come in the next week in other states where Hillary is still leading by a lot? Still a huuuuge longshot don't get me wrong, but it's something positive at least.
(I should probably get some sleep now)
Posted by: Umi 9th March 2016, 04:52 AM
Why are you up?
Posted by: B-rye 9th March 2016, 05:02 AM
Because they took until 90% reporting to call it. :')
Posted by: Umi 9th March 2016, 05:08 AM
I feel like when you realise you're being kept awake by http://i.onionstatic.com/onion/2921/8/original/1200.jpg it is time to re-assess your life.
(I'm up because I got bored of doing coursework and somehow thought forcing an inappropriate amount of coursework into a two day window would make it more enjoyable).
Posted by: Eyes 9th March 2016, 11:46 AM
I just pretend mine doesn't exist until I have to do that.
Interesting win for Sanders, I suspect it'll just lead to his supporters hanging on to 'hope' a week or two longer than they would have had it gone the other way but I'm glad for him.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 11:57 AM
Ha so I was rigt all along!!
Pollsters aren't correct still and tje momentum now means he will win the nomination.
Posted by: Oliver 9th March 2016, 12:06 PM
Pollsters aren't correct still and tje momentum now means he will win the nomination.
Michael can you please stop saying this as if it's fact.
Posted by: Qween 9th March 2016, 12:07 PM
No, it's true, he gained so much momentum last night Hilary pulled further ahead on delegate count thanks to trouncing him in Mississippi.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 12:16 PM
But there are no more southern states, well except Florida, and the rest are Michigans!! And IF he fires up grassroots and Repubs who want a weaker socialist candidate in Florida and California, overcoming 99% chance against him and a 20 point lead ... it is over.
Posted by: Trashlexis 9th March 2016, 12:21 PM
He did incredibly well in Michigan, but even then he didn't get the kind of lead that would even imply he was *tied* with Hillary, let alone winning - a tie nationally would've implied a four point win for Bernie in Michigan. He won by two - and has fallen short of where he'd need to be to be tied nationally in most other states so far.
It kind of says everything that his freak results don't even outweigh Hillary's unexpected wins - this Michigan win will be just about what he needed to get 50/50 on delegates. He has missed that target in so many other places that he's way off it.
Also, the Republican race is kind of a bit too contested for Republicans to casually go over to the Democratic primaries.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 12:25 PM
Falling short by two in a state Hillary was expected to win by a lot proves the momentum!!
Posted by: Trashlexis 9th March 2016, 12:26 PM
He's starting to run out of states for his 'momentum!!!' to build up into wins big enough to outweigh everywhere he's fallen short on delegates so far.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 12:27 PM
All he needs to do is repeat it in California and Florida and the other states are all in his demographics.
Posted by: Trashlexis 9th March 2016, 12:30 PM
No, because he'd need to be winning *big* in those states. Not just doing what he's doing now of getting respectable delegate leads in states he wins (when he needs *big* delegate leads in those states) and tying on delegates in his shock good performance states (which are states he needs to be winning and getting respectable delegate leads in). He's been trounced in so many states so far that he needs to be outperforming what were already really difficult delegate targets. One or two big states will not make the difference. He needs to be winning essentially every state from hereon out with a pretty solid lead in each.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 12:32 PM
When the delegate count between them is around 200 at maximum, then they would.
Posted by: Trashlexis 9th March 2016, 12:37 PM
Yes, which is why it doesn't help if you're only getting a net gain of 20 delegates in a big state - hence why I say he needs big wins.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 12:46 PM
But considering he might win most if not all the next 20 states as the momentum + the demographics favour him ..
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 12:50 PM
Also consider that for 50 years Kansas has voted for the next nominee and chose Bernie!
Posted by: Trashlexis 9th March 2016, 12:51 PM
Posted by: Trashlexis 9th March 2016, 12:53 PM
Again - momentum doesn't mean anything if it isn't translating into delegate leads over and above what he needed already in the previous states.
Posted by: Oliver 9th March 2016, 01:05 PM
Using the table that was posted a few pages back, Oklahoma is the only state where the Clinton target of a win wasn't reached.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 01:08 PM
And Vermont and New Hampshire.
Posted by: Oliver 9th March 2016, 01:16 PM
Neither Vermont or New Hampshire were Clinton win targets on the table a few pages back.
Posted by: Trashlexis 9th March 2016, 01:19 PM
Worth noting that screeching 'MOMENTUM!!' despite failing to meet most targets was exactly what Hillary was doing this time eight years ago. Except she was doing better than Bernie is now.
Posted by: Qween 9th March 2016, 02:05 PM
IF (and it really is a huge if) the polls in the likes of Illinois and Ohio are wrong next week by anything like the margins Michigan proved to be, then I might start to consider Bernie a viable threat to her nomination, but as it stands Michigan is simply an anomaly on which no conclusions regarding momentum for either can be based.
But, if those polls ring true (and at this stage we have no reason to believe they won't) it will put Clinton well ahead and even if Bernie wins ALL the states running up to New York on April 19th and even if he meets his targets (which, again, he's only met/surpassed 8 times so far) he still won't have done enough to catch up.
Actually, having done the math (because I'm super bored), assuming he MEETS his target in every single state from here on out, he still only gets 1948 delegates....and loses. Now, we've had 22 contests so far and he's only met his target in 8 of those, so that makes that an even tougher ask and that's only to narrowly LOSE.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 02:23 PM
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/07/caitlyn_jenner_slams_hillary_clinton_she_couldnt_care_less_about_women/
Oop! Caityln Jenner thinks Republicans are more for trans than Democrats
Posted by: B-rye 9th March 2016, 02:30 PM
Anyway, in other news from yesterday... Marco Rubio didn't win a single delegate anywhere. Kasich is going to outlast him in the race at this rate.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 02:31 PM
Good as he was the biggest threat.
Posted by: Suedehead2 9th March 2016, 03:04 PM
Kasich's prospects of success were summarised very well by Hugh Dennis on The Now Show last week. He observed that the fact that he was unsure how to pronounce Kasich's name told you all you needed to know about his chances.
Posted by: Common Sense 9th March 2016, 04:41 PM
Pollsters aren't correct still and tje momentum now means he will win the nomination.
Keep dreaming.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 05:12 PM
I bet you all vs me and Bre to a two week name change picked by others over this!
Posted by: Trashlexis 9th March 2016, 05:23 PM
Sure. Dunning-Kruger it is.
Posted by: Soy Adrián 9th March 2016, 05:25 PM
Deal.
Posted by: Trashlexis 9th March 2016, 05:35 PM
I'll also add that this is barring a massive scandal along the lines of Hillary Clinton being indicted or whatever.
Posted by: Virginia's Walls 9th March 2016, 05:49 PM
Fine. This is aboot the primary election.
Posted by: Steve201 9th March 2016, 09:59 PM
Talking rationally about this Clinton will probably win but I wonder what'll mean for her campaign that Sanders has done so decently!
Posted by: Brett-Butler 9th March 2016, 10:16 PM
I'm going to take a stab and say that a large swathe of the Sanderites who've supported him because he's seen as the anti-establishment candidate will jump ship and vote for Trump when he secures the nomination.
Powered by Invision Power Board
© Invision Power Services