2016 US Presidential Election - Trump vs Clinton? - Part 1

[darth_timon]

I just hope American voters bear in mind that the apparent failures of Obama's Presidency do in fact have a lot to do with Republican obstructionism - http://ourfuture.org/20140923/the-cost-to-our-economy-from-republican-obstruction-and-sabotage

http://www.thenation.com/article/republicans-just-took-over-senate-heres-why-sucks/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...se-of-the-Filibuster-Not-a-topic-of-the-News#

So when viewing the record of Obama's Presidency, I hope they remember it's in fact Obama-through-a-considerable-Republican-filter product, rather than purely Obama and the Democrats.

 

[Cooldude]

Apart from Donald Trump coming out of nowhere, carrying along his buffoonery and surprising support, I think the Republicans are par for the course

Actually I would say they're less crazy than the last election... so far.

I think they only look less crazy relative to the village idiot billionaire who comes up with "Mexicans are rapists, ISIS wants to kill Pope so stop dissing capitalism, bleeding outta her wherever"

The only way the Dems mightn't win is if Hillary shoots herself in the foot or that Bernie gets the nomination but the American public doesn't embrace his self-proclaimed socialism

 

[swingdog]

Having said that...

My assumption is that eventually the field WILL be winnowed down and the vote WILL start to consolidate (if for no other reason than the fact that many GOPers will be terrified of the prospect of someone like Ted Cruz beating a split field with 30% of the vote). If the field contracts and the vote consolidates, I reckon it's possible to put a line through a bunch of candidates.

Can't win:
Fiorina (and all the other candidates -- Perry, Graham, Santorum etc -- in the junior-league debate)
Carson
Cruz
Paul
Christie
Huckabee
Trump

That leaves:
Rubio
Bush
Walker

Dark horse:
Kasich -- realistically, I don't see him winning it, or even going close. BUT his underlying positioning SHOULD be attractive to GOPers. He's a hard-line conservative with a reasonable-sounding pitch. Ideologically, he's just as worrying as some of the bigger names, but his packaging has more general-election digestibility IMO. But I think it's the packaging (which would help him in the general) that is probably gonna neuter his chances in the primary. The GOP primary voters want antagonists and firebreathers. HOW something is said seems as, or more, important than WHAT. Ergo Trump.

I guess you could say some of the same things about Bush, who also tries to temper very conservative positions behind a facade of moderation. But in Bush's case, he has greater establishment support and oodles of money, and so much more entrenched in part of the spectrum Kasich is also trying to occupy. Kasich is a more natural politician, though. By far.

Of the Big Three... I've always struggled to see how Bush wins the nomination. The lingering toxicity and ill will earned by Dubya's administration was always gonna be a mighty big mountain to climb. And Jeb's campaign stumbling of recent weeks and his apparent intent to relitigate the Iraq cluster**** reinforce that.

Have thought for a while that it was Walker's nomination to lose: purple-state governor who has burnished his GOP credentials with union bashing and who ticks the right boxes on the hard-line conservative checklist... But, ******* hell, he is colourless and dull.

That's why I'm starting to think that Rubio, as low in the polls as he now sits, might just win it. He's an attractive (superficially at least) general election candidate: young, Hispanic, and Floridian. Reckon the GOP, in the absence of anything any better, will swing behind him hoping that he will neutralise seeming Democratic advantages among the young and the Hispanic, and hoping that he can shift Florida into the red column. I'm pretty sceptical that he will be able to do any of these things (he doesn't poll that well in Florida or among Hispanic voters), but if the alternative is Bush, Walker, Cruz, or Trump...

Good summary.

I think it's going to be messy. Walker, Bush and Rubio will all take votes off each other in key states with big numbers (e.g. Texas, Michigan, South Carolina). An interesting issue is that primaries held on or after March 15th can opt to be winner-take-all. As I understand it those primaries before that date (which includes those three I mentioned) will proportionately distribute their delegates according to the votes gained. That can be important for an underdog candidate as it keeps them in the game - was very important early on for Obama in 2008. Could work well for someone like Kasich.

Winner takes all changes that and interestingly, the biggest primary starting on 15 March is Florida - Rubio and Bush's home state. If one of them won that (even by a single vote), that's a massive advantage.

Have heard quite a few comparisons between Bush and Teddy Kennedy in that both seem to want to be President but have trouble articulating why they want it. Famously, it killed Kennedy's chances in 1980 when up against Carter. This has been posited as the reason behind Bush's lacklustre performance on the stump - as was noted, he's been preparing for this campaign for more than a year and he still hasn't come up with a clear answer on what he thinks of the Iraq war, knowing that would have been one of the first questions he was asked.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Last few days have reinforced my view that Rubio gets the GOP nomination. Trump is giving it to him on a platter, IMO. Not content with describing Latino immigrants as rapists and criminals, the Donald now wants to build the Great Wall of China along the southern border to keep the Mongols at bay -- admittedly not a new suggestion among the GOP nativists. He has also floated deporting approx 11 million undocumented residents, and changing (or reinterpreting) the 14th amendment, aka birthright citizenship. No more 'anchor babies' as Jeb! charmingly described them. As has been the case so far in the campaign, as soon as Trump stakes his flag in the ground on an issue, he's followed by a 'me too' chorus by the other candidates.

Problem is, to win the general election the GOP candidate will need -- depending on which turnout model you use -- 42% to 48% of the Hispanic vote. Even if Trump were to somehow translate his negligible chances into winning the GOP nomination, he's vanishingly unlikely to beat Hillary, given he's going to utterly, utterly tank with Hispanic voters. He's no chance, but then realistically he never was anything more than the longest of longshots. More pertinently, he's pulling more viable GOP candidates ever rightward (and they were pretty hard right to begin with). That's gonna make their general election 'sell' very, very tough.

There is one increasingly obvious (and inevitable?) counter to the anti-Hispanic rhetoric and the demographic dead-end it slams the GOP into. And what (who) is that?

Marco Rubio.

 

[swingdog]

Last few days have reinforced my view that Rubio gets the GOP nomination. Trump is giving it to him on a platter, IMO. Not content with describing Latino immigrants as rapists and criminals, the Donald now wants to build the Great Wall of China along the southern border to keep the Mongols at bay -- admittedly not a new suggestion among the GOP nativists. He has also floated deporting approx 11 million undocumented residents, and changing (or reinterpreting) the 14th amendment, aka birthright citizenship. No more 'anchor babies' as Jeb! charmingly described them. As has been the case so far in the campaign, as soon as Trump stakes his flag in the ground on an issue, he's followed by a 'me too' chorus by the other candidates.

Problem is, to win the general election the GOP candidate will need -- depending on which turnout model you use -- 42% to 48% of the Hispanic vote. Even if Trump were to somehow translate his negligible chances into winning the GOP nomination, he's vanishingly unlikely to beat Hillary, given he's going to utterly, utterly tank with Hispanic voters. He's no chance, but then realistically he never was anything more than the longest of longshots. More pertinently, he's pulling more viable GOP candidates ever rightward (and they were pretty hard right to begin with). That's gonna make their general election 'sell' very, very tough.

There is one increasingly obvious (and inevitable?) counter to the anti-Hispanic rhetoric and the demographic dead-end it slams the GOP into. And what (who) is that?

Marco Rubio.

It's been noted that if the Republicans could get over their obsession with immigration, they would actually be appealing to Hispanic voters who tend to be Catholic, family oriented, hard working and socially conservative. Rubio's work in Congress to try and get a bipartisan settlement should serve him well in a general election.

If he can get past the predominantly older, whiter crowd who vote in primaries.

 

[swingdog]

By the the way, if you're interested in the nitty gritty of US politics, the new HBO series, Show Me A Hero, about the desegregation of housing in Yonkers in the 1980s is great viewing.

I know that US council politics doesn't sound that engaging until you realise the series is by David Simon (The Wire):

http://www.hbo.com/show-me-a-hero

 

[Palmer Stoat]

It's been noted that if the Republicans could get over their obsession with immigration, they would actually be appealing to Hispanic voters who tend to be Catholic, family oriented, hard working and socially conservative. Rubio's work in Congress to try and get a bipartisan settlement should serve him well in a general election.

If he can get past the predominantly older, whiter crowd who vote in primaries.

Yeah, it's an argument I've come across a lot: social conservatism among the Hispanic community should make them natural parts of the GOP coalition. I'm not so sure it's a simple as that, but you'd have to figure that dampening down the nativist rhetoric would allow the GOP to make inroads.

Problem is, to win the nomination you've got to get past a party base that has been radicalised by years of cynical pandering by politicians and baiting by Fox News and the conservative machine. Extraordinarily hard task to appease the far right without tainting your general election viability.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

By the the way, if you're interested in the nitty gritty of US politics, the new HBO series, Show Me A Hero, about the desegregation of housing in Yonkers in the 1980s is great viewing.

I know that US council politics doesn't sound that engaging until you realise the series is by David Simon (The Wire):

http://www.hbo.com/show-me-a-hero

Have been IQing it on Foxtel. Look forward to watching it.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Yeah, it's an argument I've come across a lot: social conservatism among the Hispanic community should make them natural parts of the GOP coalition. I'm not so sure it's a simple as that, but you'd have to figure that dampening down the nativist rhetoric would allow the GOP to make inroads.

Problem is, to win the nomination you've got to get past a party base that has been radicalised by years of cynical pandering by politicians and baiting by Fox News and the conservative machine. Extraordinarily hard task to appease the far right without tainting your general election viability.

To expand on this, several years ago I read a piece that tried to test this proposition against how Hispanic voters actually responded when polled on various issues. My memory is hazy, but the gist of it was that even if the GOP position on immigration wasn't an issue, the Catholicism and general social conservatism of Hispanic voters wouldn't necessarily lead to them voting GOP en masse. And that's because Democratic positions on Health, Education, and the social safety net polled very well among Hispanics.

The other factor in play, I suspect, is that a lot of the GOP rhetoric on small government and 'entitlement' reform is as much about dog-whistle racial politics as it is about an economic or social or governmental philosophy. There's a Lee Atwater quote (re GOP using White antipathy toward Black Americans) that sums up how once-blatant racism has been sublimated into policy that is ostensibly not racially based.

Reckon it's not just the racists who hear the dog whistle. Minorities have a fair idea which side their bread is buttered on.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Matt Taibbi on Trump.

And another. Funny.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Any chance you can attempt to refute an argument, or as per the village idiots Ratts of T, are you just going to try and slap people with a damp lettuce?

Stiglitz and Krugman have been repeatedly wrong throughout the GFC. Why would you take their word for anything?

What a massive bell-end you are. You have so little courage in your own convictions that you run from discussions and then try and bad mouth me on forums I rarely read. You are a child.

And your accusation is ridiculously hypocritical. Your constant refrain is to call anyone who disagrees with you a moron or an idiot, without any meaningful attempt to research, let along, "refute" an argument. You throw around the same repetitive labels as if that means something and make zero impact on discussion, other than to display the ineptness and hypocrisy of your arguments. e.g. 'government spending is a huge waste, but Defence spending should be increased 50% to 3% of GDP'; or when you misread basic graphs.

The only thing saving you from total irrelevance is the speculation over what sort of Tourette's you might have to make you so repetitive. And I think that's unfair. You're probably just a sock-puppet account which is why someone has you repeating catchphrases so they don't have to put much thought into it.

 

[swingdog]

What a massive bell-end you are. You have so little courage in your own convictions that you run from discussions and then try and bad mouth me on forums I rarely read. You are a child.

And your accusation is ridiculously hypocritical. Your constant refrain is to call anyone who disagrees with you a moron or an idiot, without any meaningful attempt to research, let along, "refute" an argument. You throw around the same repetitive labels as if that means something and make zero impact on discussion, other than to display the ineptness and hypocrisy of your arguments. e.g. 'government spending is a huge waste, but Defence spending should be increased 50% to 3% of GDP'; or when you misread basic graphs.

The only thing saving you from total irrelevance is the speculation over what sort of Tourette's you might have to make you so repetitive. And I think that's unfair. You're probably just a sock-puppet account which is why someone has you repeating catchphrases so they don't have to put much thought into it.

It's always fun trying to guess which ignored poster is being referred to. By the phrase "throw around the same repetitive labels as if that means something and make zero impact on discussion", I'm going to opt for Box A, Eddie: meds.

Amirite?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

It's always fun trying to guess which ignored poster is being referred to. By the phrase "throw around the same repetitive labels as if that means something and make zero impact on discussion", I'm going to opt for Box A, Eddie: meds.

Amirite?

You are right, but it was only the $4000 question. Things gets trickier from here on in.

 

[medusala]

The only thing saving you from total irrelevance is the speculation over what sort of Tourette's you might have to make you so repetitive. And I think that's unfair. You're probably just a sock-puppet account which is why someone has you repeating catchphrases so they don't have to put much thought into it.

So again nothing to contribute to the argument. Lol at you being right re that graph etc. Why don't you get back to putting alp flyers through letter boxes.

You are the worst poster on here since 1JasonOz.

As for the point Krugman is now saying lack of debt is the issue. Unsurprising that you don't comment on that given you cant grasp the very basics of economics despite cheerleading anything Swan did.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-21/paul-krugman-what-ails-world-right-now-governments-aren%E2%80%99t-deep-enough-debt

 

[medusala]

Biden thinking about running? Not going at all well for Hilary.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/24/politics/joe-biden-president-campaign-2016-election-run/index.html

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Lol at you being right re that graph etc. Why don't you get back to putting alp flyers through letter boxes.

Yeah, generally people who are correct about something provide evidence for their being correct, rather than just saying "lol at you being right" and moving on to made-up accusations.

Given the idiom of "lies, damned lies and statistics", you'd think you would have worked out after 11 years how to use stats to back up your invented ideas, rather than just relying on those first two to try and win arguments.

 

[WA ROO]

The only way the Dems mightn't win is if Hillary shoots herself in the foot

If she shoots herself in the foot
Take a closer look,she has blown her foot off
Nothing in MSM
Has the Dem nomination in the bag and will win the White House in a canter

 

[Palmer Stoat]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/donald-trump-gallup-poll-hispanics

 

[swingdog]

It's like they're determined to piss off the Hispanic vote:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-e...mos-from-news-conference-20150826-gj7zla.html

 

[Cooldude]

If she shoots herself in the foot
Take a closer look,she has blown her foot off
Nothing in MSM
Has the Dem nomination in the bag and will win the White House in a canter

No need to be condescending, I said it with the full knowledge of what she's been up to, hence why I noted it in the first place

 

[Palmer Stoat]

The only way the Dems mightn't win is if Hillary shoots herself in the foot or that Bernie gets the nomination but the American public doesn't embrace his self-proclaimed socialism

Sanders won't win the nomination unless Hillary gets pulled down by an genuine scandal (ie, not the trumped-up Benghazi silliness). HRC is smashing Sanders among African American voters. She wins if she stays scandal free.

Can't see any rationale for Biden getting into the race in the absence of a mega-scandal either. He can't beat her.

 

[Cooldude]

Biden running would be a scandal in itself. The guy just needs to open his mouth and he's outta the race

 

[WA ROO]

Sanders won't win the nomination unless Hillary gets pulled down by an genuine scandal (ie, not the trumped-up Benghazi silliness)

Private Email server?
Clinton Foundation?
Benghazi is real to btw

 

[swingdog]

Private Email server?
Clinton Foundation?
Benghazi is real to btw

These will become an issue if she is found to have acted illegally. That is, a case is prosecuted through the courts. As long as that doesn't happen, these are going to be minor irritants.

You've got to remember that it is summer and the middle of silly season in the US. Wait until winter. Ultimately elections are decided on economic matters and the vision a candidate sets out for the country. That will only become clear once we get into the primaries proper.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Private Email server?
Clinton Foundation?
Benghazi is real to btw

Colin Powell had a private email server when Sec of Defense and Jeb Bush had one when he was Gov of Florida. HRC having one was a mistake, she's conceded as much, but it's not the mega-scandal that some are making it out to be. Unless there are more revelations in the pipeline, it ain't gonna do any lasting damage to her campaign.

Benghazi has been investigated by the following:

• FBI
• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
• FIVE separate House Committees
• State Dept Accountability Review Board
• Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Govt Affairs
• House Select Committee

After that many investigations by that many different public bodies -- and the Senate and House committees would have had Republican majorities -- do you think Clinton would still be standing if there was any truth to the stupid ******* conspiracy theories? Of course not. It's partisan nonsense. Always has been.

Clinton Foundation -- Yes, yes, you're right. It's actually SPECTRE in disguise.