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

[Play by Numbers]

Budget was due to Republicans controlling the house (Clinton tried but couldnt substantially increase spending and who can forget Hilarys woeful effort re healthcare) and as for no wars - well who can forget his stuff ups in the Balkans, Somalia etc.

No it wasn't.

It was a mixture of the executive, congress and favorable macroeconomic conditions. Bill was a masterful negotiator and no credible historian or economist denies the impact his presidency had on the economy. He pushed spending cuts which congress happily agreed to, given the argy bargy of his first couple of years and managed to get through a number of tax increases, to help fund things like retraining programs (JOBS), that did have a positive impact on employment. His policies directly led to deficit reductions, lower unemployment and higher growth.

In fact the major strike against him was that both deregulation of financial markets, and the rapid rise in investor confidence (due to improved conditions), led to the overheating of the dotcom and contributed, along with certain other decisions to the problems in 07/08.

The issue the repubs have, is that their recent track record is one of awful economic managers at state and federal level.

The tax cut approach is causing mares in states like Kansas and more traditional repubs like Christie have done an poor job meeting commitments whilst failing to balance budgets.

Bush jr was a disaster, and the so called moderate republican congress (sans Geingrich) of Clintons era never truly materialized, so there isn't a lot of positive spin to be had .

 

[medusala]

No it wasn't..

Sure it was. See his efforts pre losing control of the house.


..

In fact the major strike against him was that both deregulation of financial..

How do you think his $100m fortune came about? Why do you think he pardoned Marc Rich? Why did donations come in coincidentally after Hilary was flying around the globe? Why did she have a private server?

There sure is a major strike against the Clintons. Leopards and spots.

.

In fact the major strike against him was that both deregulation of financial markets, and the rapid rise in investor confidence (due to improved conditions), led to the overheating of the dotcom and contributed, along with certain other decisions to the problems in 07/08..

Deregulation of the financial markets didn't cause it. Glass Steagall repeal had little effect, Citi and others were already big in investment banking.

The dot com boom came on the back of easy money. It was the root cause, just as it was of the GFC

.

Bush jr was a disaster, and the so called moderate republican congress (sans Geingrich) of Clintons era never truly materialized, so there isn't a lot of positive spin to be had .

Bush jr has been made to look good by Obama who is pushing Jimmy Carter for worst post WWII President. Worse on both the economy and foreign affairs than Bush and that takes some doing

"Moderate". What a load of cobblers. As if balancing a budget and getting runaway social security and healthcare costs is somehow "extreme".

.

The issue the repubs have, is that their recent track record is one of awful economic managers at state and federal level..

Not sure why you think that. Texas, Florida, NJ and Wisconsin have all been run ok.

Contrast that with Obama and the lunatic running NY.

 

[Nightowl]

Hillary will end up the Democratic candidate... against either...
* A geriatric war hero;
* A former actor;
* An eccentric billionaire..
Or any combination of the above !.

 

[Hank Scorpion]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) has become the first Democrat to challenge Hillary (or rather, he announced an announcement):

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...rs-announce-presidential-bid-thursday-n349896


From what I've read of him, I'd far prefer him to Clinton. Although I very much doubt he could beat her in the primaries, let alone a general election.

 

[swingdog]

Nobody on the Democrat side is seriously going to challenge Clinton. I think it's good that Sanders is out there at least making her answer to the progressive wing of the party, but in the end she's going to wrap up the nomination early and then bankroll a tonne of money for the general election.

For the Republicans, it's going to come down to Walker or Bush. Rubio's been described as everyone's second choice so he'd need one of the favourites to implode to come through the middle - he'd actually be my preferred choice on that side. Cruz and Paul will be noisy early on but are too crazy to do well in the big states where the numbers are, plus they're unlikely to have the Koch brothers' money behind them (that's likely to be going to Walker, at this stage).

Of the two favourites, Walker would gee up progressive Democrats to turn out in the general given his record of union busting in Wisconsin. Bush is blander but suffers from the whole Bush family association, as weak as that may seem. Americans have good economic memories of the Clinton presidency; not so much of the last Bush one. Bush would also come under scrutiny for some of his financial gains from the re-structuring of the Florida schools system.

I'd bet it'll be Clinton vs. Walker, with Clinton winning. The growing Latino vote will continue to flow to Democrats and she'll win in the West. If it was Bush or Rubio, all bets off in that regard.

 

[medusala]

Nobody on the Democrat side is seriously going to challenge Clinton. .

There are supposedly quite a few who still think Elizabeth Warren will run and would do well if she did.

 

[swingdog]

There are supposedly quite a few who still think Elizabeth Warren will run and would do well if she did.

She'd do well in Vermont, Massachusetts and that's about it. Maybe Minnesota. Everywhere else, Clinton will have the organisation and money. Warren's not as charismatic as Obama in 08 to deliver a big grass roots turnout.

 

[medusala]

Warren's not as charismatic as Obama in 08 to deliver a big grass roots turnout.

Well given how bad he has been I am not sure that is a huge disadvantage. Nor would I say Hilary is big in that department.

Interesting to see if the mainstream press starts sniffing / publishing all the dodgy stories about Hilary. If they do then surely Warren would have to think about standing given the lack of a clear Republican candidate?

 

[swingdog]

I'm always surprised how little impact those stories have with US politicians, unless you're someone like Bill Jefferson caught with hundred dollar bills in your freezer or John Edwards with his mistress on the campaign plane.

Look at Bill Clinton's popularity figures after the Lewinsky scandal. It's sort of admirable, but Americans tend to ultimately value competence over any of the side issues.

 

[medusala]

Ross Perot was a decent factor too probably. Had his fair share of luck with Perot in both elections and facing off against Bob Dole.

Why did Giuliani fall so heavily? didnt that involve an affair?

 

[swingdog]

The Judith Nathan affair - it didn't help him but his biggest issues were timing (if the election had been directly after 9/11, he'd have done better. As it was, by 2008, a lot of that momentum had dissipated) and his ridiculous campaign strategy of putting all his effort into Florida (on the assumption that it had big numbers and lots of retired New Yorkers - that they were likely to be Democrat Jews didn't seem to occur to him).

By the time of the Florida primary, Romney and McCain had gathered delegates and big money to spend on advertising. After McCain won Florida, Giuliani had no back-up plan.

 

[medusala]

The Judith Nathan affair - it didn't help him but his biggest issues were timing (if the election had been directly after 9/11, he'd have done better. As it was, by 2008, a lot of that momentum had dissipated) and his ridiculous campaign strategy of putting all his effort into Florida (on the assumption that it had big numbers and lots of retired New Yorkers - that they were likely to be Democrat Jews didn't seem to occur to him).

Madoff on the other hand knew exactly what he was doing in Florida!

 

[Todman]

I was in the US over the Xmas new year period. I asked a lot of voters who they thought might be the next president?

The most popular response was "Anyone but Hilary!"

 

[swingdog]

There's a thing called selection bias.

 

[Jascave]

Seeing that U.S. Presidential candidates can sometimes come from left-field (think Ronald Reagan, former Hollywood actor who became President in 1980), what are the chances of one Vincent Kennedy McMahon (Chairman of the World Wrestling Entertainment company) being US President in 2016? What about Dave Letterman? Or even Bill O'Reilly?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[swingdog]

Seeing that U.S. Presidential candidates can sometimes come from left-field (think Ronald Reagan, former Hollywood actor who became President in 1980), what are the chances of one Vincent Kennedy McMahon (Chairman of the World Wrestling Entertainment company) being US President in 2016? What about Dave Letterman? Or even Bill O'Reilly?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not good unless they've been Governor of California first.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ManWithNoName]

Presented without comment.

 

[swingdog]

Oh dear.....

 

[telsor]

Nobody on the Democrat side is seriously going to challenge Clinton. I think it's good that Sanders is out there at least making her answer to the progressive wing of the party, but in the end she's going to wrap up the nomination early and then bankroll a tonne of money for the general election.

For the Republicans, it's going to come down to Walker or Bush. Rubio's been described as everyone's second choice so he'd need one of the favourites to implode to come through the middle - he'd actually be my preferred choice on that side. Cruz and Paul will be noisy early on but are too crazy to do well in the big states where the numbers are, plus they're unlikely to have the Koch brothers' money behind them (that's likely to be going to Walker, at this stage).

Of the two favourites, Walker would gee up progressive Democrats to turn out in the general given his record of union busting in Wisconsin. Bush is blander but suffers from the whole Bush family association, as weak as that may seem. Americans have good economic memories of the Clinton presidency; not so much of the last Bush one. Bush would also come under scrutiny for some of his financial gains from the re-structuring of the Florida schools system.

I'd bet it'll be Clinton vs. Walker, with Clinton winning. The growing Latino vote will continue to flow to Democrats and she'll win in the West. If it was Bush or Rubio, all bets off in that regard.

I'd be looking at Rubio as VP candidate with Walker (can't practically go with Bush as both are from Florida) which would negate a lot of the Latino vote flowing to the Dems.

 

[Lebbo73]

Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) has become the first Democrat to challenge Hillary (or rather, he announced an announcement):

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...rs-announce-presidential-bid-thursday-n349896


From what I've read of him, I'd far prefer him to Clinton. Although I very much doubt he could beat her in the primaries, let alone a general election.

Both parties will rape the country, unless Rand Paul becomes president. If this happens, ask him to say hello to JFK.

 

[Lebbo73]

I am betting on martial law being declared before the next election and Obama will be the last president!

 

[swingdog]

I'd be looking at Rubio as VP candidate with Walker (can't practically go with Bush as both are from Florida) which would negate a lot of the Latino vote flowing to the Dems.

I'd back that in as a good ticket.

 

[swingdog]

I am betting on martial law being declared before the next election and Obama will be the last president!

I'll bet you $10,000 on that - just send me your bank details.

 

[Ice-Wolf]

Presented without comment.

Well there goes his candidacy into the toilet.

 

[medusala]

This is interesting. It was pretty obvious Obama/ Hilary were lying but to this extent? Add that to Benghazi, drones, Libya, Syria etc

Making Dubya looking like Kissinger

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...-ladens-death-one-big-lie-what-really-happene

Among the many allegations of Hersh's report are that:

• bin Laden had been a prisoner of the Pakistan intelligence at the Abbottabad compound since 2006 (something revealed previously in "Osama bin Laden 'protected by Pakistan in return for Saudi cash")
• that the two most senior Pakistani military leaders knew of the raid in advance and had made sure that the two helicopters delivering the Seals to Abbottabad could cross Pakistani airspace without triggering any alarms;
• that the CIA did not learn of bin Laden’s whereabouts by tracking his couriers, as the White House has claimed since May 2011, but from a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer who betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the US,
• and that, while Obama did order the raid and the Seal team did carry it out, many other aspects of the administration’s account were false.