2016 US election discussion

[TheNewNo2]

There is a poll out suggesting Cruz has now overtaken Trump nationally, 28% to 26%.



http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-poll-supreme-court/

I think we can safely say Jeb! is out of it. All those millions accumulated by his Super PAC, for 4% and a fourth place finish in New Hampshire. At least he revitalised the use of the humble exclamation mark, did Jeb! in his calamitous run. :P

NBC/WSJ is a good pollster, but that is certainly an outlier in terms of result. I'd be dubious of it.

Regarding Jeb, I think he stays in to try and hurt Trump.

 

[backontrack]

I heard Trump was a Muslim who was born in Kenya

He also grew up in Mexico and has Canadian citizenship. And his middle name is Muhammad.

 

[me123]

There is a poll out suggesting Cruz has now overtaken Trump nationally, 28% to 26%.

I'd be very surprised if that was a true representation of what's happening. Aggregate polling suggests that Trump is 13.6 points ahead of Cruz, and a subsequent poll conducted by Fox suggests that Trump remains comfortably in the lead.

If we have a look at South Carolina, Trump looking comfortably ahead of the field. I'd be surprised if he doesn't win

The whole Pope thing... it's interesting in that it might slightly harm Trump. A lot of Americans (and Republicans in particular) are very strongly Christian, and a negative endorsement from Francis might be taken to heart. Attacking the Pope would be a foolish move, which Trump seems to have avoided thus far (It's Mexico's fault! :roll.

The sane party are caucusing in Nevada tomorrow, looks quite close between Sanders and Hillary.

 

[radamfi]

The whole Pope thing... it's interesting in that it might slightly harm Trump. A lot of Americans (and Republicans in particular) are very strongly Christian, and a negative endorsement from Francis might be taken to heart. Attacking the Pope would be a foolish move, which Trump seems to have avoided thus far (It's Mexico's fault! :roll.

I listened to Rush Limbaugh yesterday evening and lots of Catholics were phoning in, saying that they thought the Pope was out of order and saying that the Pope is a communist or at least a socialist.

It would make more sense (from the parties' point of view) for second (and subsequent) preferences to be taking into account in the primaries, so they can work out who is most likely to win the actual election.

 

[miami]

I suspect many "republican Christians" would throw Jesus in jail for being a hippy anti-business commie terrorist.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Trump sweeps South Carolina, whilst Hillary does much better in Nevada than the polls suggested. The big news, of course, is that Jeb! has dropped out of the race. I guess this means the GOP establishment will throw their lot in with Rubio. Even then, I'm struggling to see anyone other than Trump as the GOP nominee now.

Sanders' weakness is with black and minority voters, and with a number of Democratic primaries coming up with large minority populations, I think it's Hillary's to lose now.

 

[Busaholic]

Just as in 2008.

 

[Groningen]

Ted Cruz has a new commercial; eh, with the skyline of Vancouver and a canadian tugboat.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Regarding Jeb, I think he stays in to try and hurt Trump.

Well, it did not take Jeb Bush long to decide to stand down...:roll:

 

[TheNewNo2]

Well, it did not take Jeb Bush long to decide to stand down...:roll:

Every professional pundit who has predicted anything about this election has been almost entirely wrong, I don't see why I should be any different!

 

[Groningen]

Everybody will remember Jeb Bush for "Please clap" after 1 monologue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUXvrWeQU0g

 

[southern442]

Everybody will remember Jeb Bush for "Please clap" after 1 monologue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUXvrWeQU0g

I had to try and convince myself it was just a comedy sketch show to avoid dying of second-hand embarrassment....

 

[backontrack]

If one is ever bored and wants to laugh at the US election, I recommend taking a gander at Stephen Colbert's YouTube channel.

Here's one of his videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5kAom55cj8

[YOUTUBE]o5kAom55cj8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

He is saying what his electorate want to hear (ie a significant proportion of Republican party members). However the wider electorate often has very different views. The same applies in most political parties. The Tories have in the past and are about to again, tear themselves apart on Europe an issue that most of the electorate think is pretty unimportant. Labour has elected a leader who is probably to the left of the majority of the electorate. The concerns and interests of active party members (who are not representative of the wider electorate) are apparent in the party leaders they choose - while Jo Public thinks why on earth did they elect them.

I would suggest the majority of the public would not have chosen Michael Foot, Gordon Brown, Ed Milliband or Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leaders or Margaret Thatcher, John Major, William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith or Michael Howard for the Tories.

How easy it appears to be upon a thread specifically about the American Presidential election that off-thread comments about a different country and its political parties can suddenly sprout forth that have no relationship whatsoever to the thread matter...

 

[miami]

I see that Ttunp is only getting 1 in 3 republicans to vote for him, with 2 in 3 voting for others.

The way the democrats work on the other hand makes Thw republicans look like a democracy.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is the 2016 calendar date of "Super Tuesday" when 11 states go to the polls?

 

[TheNewNo2]

I see that Ttunp is only getting 1 in 3 republicans to vote for him, with 2 in 3 voting for others.

The way the democrats work on the other hand makes Thw republicans look like a democracy.

Sure 2 in 3 voters are voting for someone other than Trump, but it's not as if they're all "anti-Trump" voters. The second choice preference polls are pretty devastating for Rubio, and show that one on one Cruz has a better chance than he does.

I'll grant you Superdelegates aren't the most democratic of things, but I don't necessarily see anything wrong with them. It makes sense that party actors should have an outsize say in who their party nominates. Besides, Clinton will win most normal delegates anyway.

Super Tuesday is March 1st.

 

[Groningen]

Chris Christie Endorses Donald Trump and Calls Marco Rubio ‘Desperate’ from NY Times.

So maybe we know who becomes vice president if Trump wins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k3EZGUECwo

 

[deltic]

How easy it appears to be upon a thread specifically about the American Presidential election that off-thread comments about a different country and its political parties can suddenly sprout forth that have no relationship whatsoever to the thread matter...

Guilty as charged your honor

 

[me123]

Chris Christie Endorses Donald Trump and Calls Marco Rubio ‘Desperate’ from NY Times.

So maybe we know who becomes vice president if Trump wins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k3EZGUECwo

I'm hoping for a Trump/Palin ticket. The comedy would be endless.

 

[Groningen]

I do not see any IQ with Palin; Trump as president. Finally we than know whether you can run a country like a company.

 

[backontrack]

It looks like it might be Trump/Kasich.

 

[Busaholic]

Happily, Trump can't be elected; unhappily, Clinton can. It's a lose/lose position as far as I'm concerned.

 

[NY Yankee]

Based on the electoral college system, all a candidate has to do is win the swing states (Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio). There are states that will always go red (ex. South Carolina, Texas) and states that will always go blue (California). Trump is way too far to the right to win the swing states. He'll win the deep south states, the same states that support the Confederate Flag, but he won't win the states with intelligent people.

But in the worst case scenario of Trump becoming president, I apologise to the people of the UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, and every other industrialised nation in advance.

 

[Busaholic]

Based on the electoral college system, all a candidate has to do is win the swing states (Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio). There are states that will always go red (ex. South Carolina, Texas) and states that will always go blue (California). Trump is way too far to the right to win the swing states. He'll win the deep south states, the same states that support the Confederate Flag, but he won't win the states with intelligent people.

But in the worst case scenario of Trump becoming president, I apologise to the people of the UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, and every other industrialised nation in advance.

Assuming we haven't by then been taken over by our own worst case scenario (the quiet man getting his revenge at long last) please come and join us.

 

[overthewater]

Based on the electoral college system, all a candidate has to do is win the swing states (Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio). There are states that will always go red (ex. South Carolina, Texas) and states that will always go blue (California). Trump is way too far to the right to win the swing states. He'll win the deep south states, the same states that support the Confederate Flag, but he won't win the states with intelligent people.

But in the worst case scenario of Trump becoming president, I apologise to the people of the UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, and every other industrialised nation in advance.

Sad fact is up to 1996 that was never the case, and most states could and would swing both ways. Its shame the US has become so sperated.

electoral college system is an awful system.

Happily, Trump can't be elected; unhappily, Clinton can. It's a lose/lose position as far as I'm concerned.

Its been said alot of sander supporters may not come out to vote if Clinton is on the ballot

 

[miami]

Based on the electoral college system, all a candidate has to do is win the swing states (Florida, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio). There are states that will always go red (ex. South Carolina, Texas) and states that will always go blue (California).

That's the case with any undemocratic system - we have the same thing with constituencies in the UK, where most of the country have no say in the election.

In the case of the US election, where you're electing a single person, there's no reason other than subversion of democracy to not have the popular vote decide the election. It's still a bad system with results tending to a two-party system, an AV system on the top would help with that.

Not that democracy is the be-all and end-all, 51% of a country can oppress 49% (or in the case of the uk about 35% of the electorate)

The US is trying to implement a "one-man one-vote" system, where everyone's vote is of equal value - with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It would detract from the political emphasis on the swing states though, you won't catch Ohio signing up for example.

But such a move wouldn't change anything, only once in living memory has the presidency gone to the candidate who lost the popular vote. That vote was possibly the most important presidential vote in recent history, Bush vs Gore.

However america has been carefully cultivated to spilt into two equal sized identical camps, with half the country blaming their woes on the republicans, and half on the democrats, and not realising that both sides are pretty much indistinguishable.

 

[overthewater]

US is worse than a Banana republic, at least those place at least try or make it look like the winner got 50% of the vote. Obama the first one to get just over 50% of the vote, the last person being Bush snr in 88. Even in Russia or Brazil there would have a run off to get 50.01% of the vote.

This is very good video explaining the troubles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

 

[TheNewNo2]

Its been said alot of sander supporters may not come out to vote if Clinton is on the ballot

I don't think that's the case. By and large supporters of the democratic candidates support the other, just not quite as much. And they all know the alternative is much much worse.

Of course, Sanders hasn't shown any miraculous ability to turn out new supporters. He's doing better than people expected, but turnout is down on 2008.

 

[WelshBluebird]

US is worse than a Banana republic, at least those place at least try or make it look like the winner got 50% of the vote. Obama the first one to get just over 50% of the vote, the last person being Bush snr in 88. Even in Russia or Brazil there would have a run off to get 50.01% of the vote.

What does that say about the UK where the Tories got under 37% of the vote?