2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/ele ... epublican/
Six if you count Carson's . The establishment lane has 39% combined to throw around. If they make kasich, Bush, or rubio The Establishment Candidate, then Cruz and Trump will be left splitting their core constituents and lose.
You do realize that primaries aren't only fptp, rather they are proportional first and winner take all later.
Last edited by sardia on Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:12 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:58 pm UTC

On the other hand, if the establishment combine forces and Cruz drops out, Cruz's supporters switch to Trump (or vice versa) and Trump selects Cruz as his vice president. Its clear to me that the insurgent branch of Republicans currently have momentum, but these early states favor Trump / Cruz anyway.

It could come down to the Evangelicals, who I don't see as switching over from Cruz to Trump. Trump doesn't strike me as a very religious guy to rally behind. I'd bet the Evangelicals would pick Rubio or Jeb over Trump.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Feb 11, 2016 5:04 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/south-carolina-republican/
Six if you count Carson's . The establishment lane has 39% combined to throw around. If they make kasich, Bush, or rubio The Establishment Candidate, then Cruz and Trump will be left splitting their core constituents and lose.
You do realize that primaries aren't only fptp, rather they are proportional first and winter take all later.


Oh sure, there's other stuff involved...but swapping to approval or something would be a great help.

Bush ain't gonna make it. He only got twoish% more of the vote in Iowa than you did.

I count the existing field as:
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Bush, Kasich, Gilmore.

Gilmore is irrelevant, and I don't think Carson can last. He's just going to slide into obscurity and drop, I think. Evangelicals can't push him up enough to be relevant. Now, where his voters go...eh. Maybe Cruz? They're not exactly establishment 100%, but they're also not really Trump fans. He's too crude for them.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

sardia wrote:rather they are proportional first and winter take all later.


It's kind of mixed. The next one is South Carolina, which is plurality, then Nevada which is proportional, then you have Super Tuesday, which is partially proportional, and partially semi-proportional with some having high thresholds (e.g. 19% of the vote = 0 delegates in Texas) and winner take all if a Candidate gets more than 50%. Because of that, if the Establishment can't get behind someone before Super Tuesday, they are going to be at a real disadvantage.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

CBusAlex
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CBusAlex » Thu Feb 11, 2016 10:20 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Not that Gilmore matters, mind, but still.


Hey, he got almost as many votes as Vermin Supreme

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Thu Feb 11, 2016 11:27 pm UTC

Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:32 am UTC

Jesus, it's ridiculous watching Hillary try to smear Bernie for his criticism of Obama after the shit that her campaign pulled in 2008. There is not one ounce of sincerity in her at all.

Oh, and she's proud to be taking advice from Henry Kissinger – one of the few figures in the past half-century of American foreign policy who manages to eclipse Dick Cheney in awfulness. Apparently we should get ready for a repeat of the Nixon administration, complete with enemies lists.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Feb 12, 2016 7:57 pm UTC

Exit the vampires' castle.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:04 pm UTC

The pursuit of the unspeakable(Clinton) by the unelectable(Sanders).
Lazar wrote:There is not one ounce of sincerity in her at all.
I can't really believe that you used the word sincerity in relationship to a politician.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:11 pm UTC

Sure, politicians are notorious for not keeping promises, but...there are degrees.

Put it this way, Sanders is probably making promises he can't keep, but Clinton is making promises she won't keep.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:41 pm UTC

I mean, I've tried as much as possible to be a pragmatist and to accept the small incremental changes that the Democratic Party offers. I'll admit, I still have a lingering antipathy toward Nader voters from 2000, with their idealistic ignorance of how our electoral system works. And in 2008, despite my strong support for Obama and my antipathy for Hillary's dirty tricks, there was little doubt in my mind that I would vote for her if she were the nominee. But at this point, for whatever reason, I just can't stomach it anymore. In utilitarian terms I do indeed think that Hillary would be preferable to any of the Republicans – but all the same, after all the lies and posturing, I simply cannot vote for her in good conscience. Maybe it'll cast this country into a Cruzo-Trumpian apocalyptic hellscape, but I just can't do it. I'll vote for Jill Stein, or I'll write in Bernie Sanders, or I'll write in fucking Mickey Mouse. Bill and Hillary are a pair of sociopaths and I cannot and will not support them.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:11 am UTC

Protip, all politicians are like that. The only solution is to go full KGB to root out anti(insert party platform) thoughts that politician might have. So you send in moles(whistleblowers), spies, keep a paper trail, and secret surveillance. Politicians are responsive to stimulus, and are fairly perceptive people. Your problem is that the public isn't very bright, and will send signals(aka vote/not vote) for a lot of things they didn't consciously know about.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:09 am UTC

"All your choices are horrible, so definitely don't hold back on choosing someone horrible!"
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 13, 2016 3:38 pm UTC

You have any number of options. However the reality is that someone will be nominated and someone will be elected, no matter what individual choices you make. Sometimes it comes down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. My thought process is thus. Anybody but Trump. In a contest between Clinton and Cruz, Clinton. And so on. I'm voting for damage control, in so far as that is possible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 13, 2016 4:57 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:"All your choices are horrible, so definitely don't hold back on choosing someone horrible!"

Are you capable of recognizing shades of gray? Or are you quantifying certain candidates as equally qualified? If so, please explain how their qualities closely match.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

What really has me down right now is the attempt by Clinton and her allies to drive a wedge between Sanders and black people, just in time for the South Carolina primary. John Lewis's civil rights credentials are unimpeachable, but all the same his statement about the two candidates was ill-considered:

I never saw him, I never met him. I was chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years – 1963 to 1966. I was involved in the sit-ins, the freedom rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery. I directed the board of education project for six years. I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton.

Bernie's record speaks for itself: it's a fact that he organized for CORE and SNCC, that he led rallies and sit-ins at the University of Chicago, that he was at the March on Washington, and that he was arrested and fined for his participation in an anti-segregation protest. He never claimed a position of national prominence in the civil rights movement, and none other than MLK's friend and adviser Clarence Jones has defended him on this point:

Whether a young activist Bernie Sanders was known to John Lewis or Martin Luther King at the time of their leadership is not a fair or true index of Sanders’ earlier commitment and/or activism. There were times when as a political advisor, personal lawyer and draft speechwriter for Dr. King, when we and others worked 24/7. During those times, there were people whom we met years later, who had also been active, but neither we nor Dr. King knew them personally.

Lewis's statement implies that he met the Clintons during the 60s, which isn't true. (Note that he later had to clarify both these points.) In 1964 Hillary was campaigning for Barry Goldwater, whose candidacy went absolutely against the interests of African Americans. And from 1964 to 67 Bill Clinton clerked for the segregationist senator William Fulbright, even citing him as a mentor. They were young and I don't hold these things against them, but the fact remains that the Clintons were not part of the civil rights movement – and to try to use that movement as a cudgel against someone who was part of it is wrong. And while John Lewis may have misspoken, the statement by Representative G.K. Butterfield is a downright smear:

We must have a president that understands the racial divide – not someone who just acquired the knowledge recently, but someone who understands the racial divide and has lived it and worked through it down through the years.

I mean, how can you respond to that? How much would it sting to have spent your life advocating for racial and social justice and to hear someone lie about your record like that? For someone to compare you unfavorably to the Clintons, who co-opted right-wing ideas about welfare reform, who aggressively prosecuted the War on Drugs which has been ruinous for black communities, who referred to troubled black youths as "super-predators" and expressed a desire to "bring them to heel", who until last year maintained ties to the private prison industry, and who in 2008 ran a racist smear campaign against the man who would be America's first black president? The Clintons are engaging in swiftboating of the first order, asking us to inhabit an upside-down moral universe in which strengths become liabilities – the same universe in which "patriotic" Republicans could mock American veterans with Purple Heart band-aids in 2004.

In 1984 and 1988 Bernie Sanders endorsed Jesse Jackson for president, saying in a C-SPAN interview that he was "far and away the only candidate, to my mind, who's making sense on the issues." In 2004, "when Cynthia McKinney and John Lewis held hearings on black voter disenfranchisement Bernie was only white member to show up to support." But again and again we see Clinton surrogates impugning him on race. Two days ago Jonathan Capehart wrote a hit piece in the Washington Post claiming that Bernie Sanders is lying about being in a photograph from a civil rights protest. Except the photographer himself has confirmed that it's Bernie Sanders, and now Capehart is busily figuring out how next to spin it. ("Spent the day doing my job. Reporting. Getting the facts. Thinking before writing. New Bernie photo piece coming soon. Not so cut and dry.") By pure coincidence, Capehart's domestic partner is Nick Schmit, who worked for the 2008 Clinton campaign, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's State Department. And Rebecca Traister, one of the Clinton surrogates who's now pushing the manufactured Bernie Bro narrative, was doing the same damn thing in 2008, referring to Barack Obama's supporters as "Obama Boys". Nowadays these nefarious frat boys are both racist and sexist, but apparently back then they were only sexist. (Meanwhile Sanders is chosen by 55% of women and 82% of women under 30 in the New Hampshire primary – all of them destined for hell, according to Madeleine Albright.)

Shit like this is why I cannot associate myself with the amoral smear machine that is the Clinton dynasty. Not ever.
Last edited by Lazar on Sat Feb 20, 2016 1:14 am UTC, edited 8 times in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Sat Feb 13, 2016 6:39 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Are you capable of recognizing shades of gray? Or are you quantifying certain candidates as equally qualified? If so, please explain how their qualities closely match.

I'm quite capable of recognizing shades of gray, but your argument was that he shouldn't abstain out of principle because he'll never find a choice that doesn't violate his principles. That's kinda messed up.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Feb 13, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:I'm quite capable of recognizing shades of gray, but your argument was that he shouldn't abstain out of principle because he'll never find a choice that doesn't violate his principles. That's kinda messed up.

Don't you think that it's kinda messed up that you only have unyielding principles, and hold nothing open for negotiation, compromise, or debate? How many groups are in your coalition, and who are they? For example, the GOP has guns, abortion, and pro-business culture(low taxes/regulations); which don't naturally synergize, but they came together anyway because it was a way to get some of what you wanted instead of getting nothing. That's how they ended up with a coalition of business elites, extra religious bloc, and the rural community bloc.

PS: I think your spoiled with too much choice, and you're complaining about how you don't have enough. I remember the days when we were lucky to get a primary fight, and they were all generic old white dudes with a clone of the party platform for the year.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:22 pm UTC

More media corruption: "'Politico' editor held 'secret contest' with Clinton aides at State Dep't to name a column."

Oh, and here's a piece about the close personal and professional relationship between the Clintons and the war criminal Henry Kissinger. But no, Hillary is totally a progressive and not part of the establishment.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cyanyoshi » Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:27 pm UTC

But Hillary is a woman, which totally means she isn't an establishment candidate! [/sarcasm]

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Adacore » Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:42 pm UTC

Wait, is anyone seriously arguing that Hillary Clinton is not an establishment candidate? Because that's an utterly absurd suggestion. Hell, I'd say having 'establishment credentials' (rephrasing it as 'relevant experience') is one of her major strengths.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:01 pm UTC

From a recent debate: "Honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the establishment. It’s really quite amusing to me."

She… really is saying that she can't be establishment because she's a woman. Never mind that she's married to the most influential Democratic politican since LBJ, that she's served as a big-state senator and as secretary of state, that she's worth tens of millions, that she's awash in corporate donations, that Goldman Sachs pays her to speak to them, that she was on the board of Walmart, that she hobnobs with the Kissingers and that the Saudi royal family saw fit to fling half a million dollars' worth of gifts at her.
Exit the vampires' castle.


User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3069
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Mon Feb 15, 2016 4:25 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:I just can't stomach it anymore. In utilitarian terms I do indeed think that Hillary would be preferable to any of the Republicans – but all the same, after all the lies and posturing, I simply cannot vote for her in good conscience. Maybe it'll cast this country into a Cruzo-Trumpian apocalyptic hellscape, but I just can't do it. I'll vote for Jill Stein, or I'll write in Bernie Sanders, or I'll write in fucking Mickey Mouse. Bill and Hillary are a pair of sociopaths and I cannot and will not support them.

Game theory supports your decision. If this were a one-off election, then yeah it would make sense to support the “least-bad” candidate in the general. But since elections are a repeated game, then refusing to reward bad behavior can absolutely be the right move.

Furthermore, if it comes to that, you may be interested to know that any third-party which receives at least 5% of the vote becomes eligible for federal matching funds in the next election cycle. So in that sense, such a vote is not even wasted—it can have a real effect. Plus the more people vote honestly for their favorite candidate, the closer the final vote count comes to reflecting what people truly think.

We may yet be able to do better though. Recent polling shows that Bernie Sanders’s policy ideas enjoy huge yuge support among Americans of all stripes (PDF link). If we can get past the Clinton machine in the primary, then we have a real shot to elect the best candidate in the race.
wee free kings

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Feb 15, 2016 5:41 pm UTC

Also, since you are in Massachusetts, your electoral vote is going to Hillary no matter what you do.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:07 am UTC

Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Feb 16, 2016 12:50 am UTC

If Trump runs independent, it could kill any chance the Republicans have of beating Hillary regardless of who they nominate. So the question is whether he is loyal to the Republican party; if he's loyal to the Democrats or only to himself then he'll run third party, otherwise he'll sit it out if he isn't nominated.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

ijuin
Posts: 1150
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ijuin » Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:27 am UTC

Yes, it'll be 1992 all over again--a strong third-party candidate will take a large number of right- wing votes, resulting in the Democratic Party candidate winning with a clear plurality but not an absolute majority.

Nelson43
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:51 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Nelson43 » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:59 am UTC

officially running

1 Hillary Clinton

2 Bernie sanders

3 Jim Webb

4 Lincoln chafee

Hillary Clinton has announced that she is running for president of the United states in 2016.
the third party candidates have little or nothing to do with the way debates are held.

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby jestingrabbit » Tue Feb 16, 2016 6:00 am UTC



Wouldn't that damage his brand (to use that shitty advertising style of speech)? He presents as a straight shooter, and real. He stated in one of the debates that he would not run as a third party candidate. So obviously going against his word would surely be poison.

In other third party news, the New Hampshire results seem to have pushed us closer to a Bloomberg run.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cyanyoshi » Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:07 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:


Wouldn't that damage his brand (to use that shitty advertising style of speech)? He presents as a straight shooter, and real. He stated in one of the debates that he would not run as a third party candidate. So obviously going against his word would surely be poison.

In other third party news, the New Hampshire results seem to have pushed us closer to a Bloomberg run.

The way Trump has been going so far, I can easily see him explain away any of his earlier promises and continue on his merry way as a third-party candidate without missing a beat. However, I think that threatening to run third party is simply to make the Republican Party scared of not choosing him. It's a negotiation tactic that's very much in line with his businessman mentality. Trump knows he has no chance of winning as a third party candidate, and I still have a hard time believing he would take the Republican candidate down with him unless he is secretly a Democrat. THAT would be the ultimate betrayal of trust with his fanbase.

Puppyclaws
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:08 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Puppyclaws » Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:15 pm UTC

He only said he would not run as a third party as long as he was treated fairly. Given the reality distortion field he's living in, any event could be interpreted as unfair treatment.

I don't think the democrats are that lucky, though.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Tue Feb 16, 2016 2:33 pm UTC

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Trump has a point. The Republican party is blatantly not playing fair. The latest Republican debate's audience for example was clearly stacked in Jeb!'s favour.

And honestly I have no idea what Trump's exit strategy is, or if he even has one. He's burned a lot of bridges in his run for the presidency. His business empire must be suffering because of it. No one from Mexico or the Middle East (or most other countries) is going to want to have anything to do with him. He's pretty much all in on this run. If he fails he can't go back to the way things were. if he fails to get the nomination, it's entirely possible that he'd run as an independent just to spite the Republican party. At that point he has nothing to lose.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8569
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:11 pm UTC

I suppose if he fails he'll just end up being a poor lonely multi-billionaire. My heart goes out to him.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Tue Feb 16, 2016 3:18 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:And honestly I have no idea what Trump's exit strategy is, or if he even has one. He's burned a lot of bridges in his run for the presidency. His business empire must be suffering because of it. No one from Mexico or the Middle East (or most other countries) is going to want to have anything to do with him. He's pretty much all in on this run. If he fails he can't go back to the way things were. if he fails to get the nomination, it's entirely possible that he'd run as an independent just to spite the Republican party. At that point he has nothing to lose.


That's one view of humanity, the other is that money makes pragmatists of even the most principled man.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1824
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:36 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this, but Trump has a point.
That shouldn't surprise you. The worst people in the world will tell the truth when it suits them and a broken clock will still tell the correct time twice a day.
No one from Mexico or the Middle East (or most other countries) is going to want to have anything to do with him
I don't think that is going to really bother the richest Mexicans or middle easterners. They're almost as scared of their poor people as Trump. I'd be very surprised in Trump gets his way and rich people have trouble getting into America.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby doogly » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:39 pm UTC

His brand is hurting with the rich because he is horribly not classy. He's running on the basest populism. It's been a real issue:
http://gawker.com/this-all-means-nothin ... 1752454002
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Feb 16, 2016 4:40 pm UTC

jestingrabbit wrote:


Wouldn't that damage his brand (to use that shitty advertising style of speech)? He presents as a straight shooter, and real. He stated in one of the debates that he would not run as a third party candidate. So obviously going against his word would surely be poison.

In other third party news, the New Hampshire results seem to have pushed us closer to a Bloomberg run.


Bloomberg is less relevant. If he does a third party run, he'll be about as important as O'Malley was. Without a certain critical mass, third party campaigns just inherently fizzle.

Trump actually has a credible shot at splitting the vote. If we're going to start picking at him not being historically consistent, well...that's an open and shut case. He's absolutely not. Anyone who cares about that is already not among Trump's followers. So, I don't see that as a major factor for him losing folks.

The bigger issue is that losing the republican nom might damage his aura of power. He's running on bombast and attitude to a large degree, and a decisive loss hurts that a good deal.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:18 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this, but Trump has a point. The Republican party is blatantly not playing fair. The latest Republican debate's audience for example was clearly stacked in Jeb!'s favour.

And honestly I have no idea what Trump's exit strategy is, or if he even has one. He's burned a lot of bridges in his run for the presidency. His business empire must be suffering because of it. No one from Mexico or the Middle East (or most other countries) is going to want to have anything to do with him. He's pretty much all in on this run. If he fails he can't go back to the way things were. if he fails to get the nomination, it's entirely possible that he'd run as an independent just to spite the Republican party. At that point he has nothing to lose.


Just FYI: Trump always has a point. In fact, Trump / Bernie are running on virtually the same platform. Don't trust those guys: they're from Washington and took money from a lobbyist. And look, the lobbyist's money has given X / Y / Z advantages.

The anti-establishment runs strong across the country.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8569
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:24 pm UTC

Um, being anti-establishment doesn't mean you're the same. They use similar tactics, perhaps, but they have vastly different messages, of course. Sorry, I don't mean to detract from your (valid) point, I just kind of shudder when you say that Trump and Sanders have the same platform :)
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests