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

[Inferno]

Trump is still to win over the evangelical vote. Cruz and Rubio are both still courting it better. However if Trump was to win the nomination you'd expect them to fall in behind Trump.

Clinton has the money, wouldn't underestimate her. However, at this point in time Trump vs Clinton will not end well for the Democrats. He's stumbled upon the winning formula, and with no clear 2nd challenger I expect Trump to sweep most states on Tuesday.

I suspect that he's cornered himself with his bombastic personality and controversial statements in that he'll likely drive Democrats and Democrat leaning independents to turn up on election day who wouldn't show up if Rubio was the candidate, enough to overcome the voter fatigue they'd be feeling for Hillary.

 

[MaddAdam]

Matt Taibbi gets a hell of a lot right here IMO

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224

 

[SwampCreature]

Srs q. In the evnt Trump gets his finger on the trigger, will the world be closer to nuclear oblivion than ever before?

I mean, this guy clearly does not think twice a hell of a lot.

 

[MaddAdam]

Srs q. In the evnt Trump gets his finger on the trigger, will the world be closer to nuclear oblivion than ever before?

I mean, this guy clearly does not think twice a hell of a lot.

Cruz, Rubio and especially, especially x a million Hilary are all far more dangerous on foreign affairs than Trump.

 

[SwampCreature]

I'm not even really thinking of it through a political lens when I ask that question.

I mean, this is a guy who openly pines for the days he could punch a protestor in the face, or stands on stage laughing at opponents calling them pussys.

What's if Putin calls him a joke and a disgrace, or he super offends the Chinese (really that's a when and not if deal)?

What then? What's to say he won't go over the top the way he is known to do?

I guess I politely disagree with you on that one at this point.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

I am loving the Donald.

He is a sign that the majority are starting to rebel against the 'system', the political elite, the establishment etc. Long over due. I don't think he can fix America, they are pretty much in permanent decline IMO due to their debt levels and racial divisions. They need a reset and he may not make it happen but will probably hasten its onset.

He has a very strange supporter base at this stage, hard right christian types of tea party persuassion and blue collar workers (attracted by his anti free trade stance) who are normally rusted on democrats. He also seems to be getting people to vote who had 'given up' and is getting huge turn outs. His tax policy actually looks OK, has funding holes but with their deficits no one can close that gap. Still reports of the following re the establishment trying to derail him:

1. Bloomberg to run as an independent, would appeal to the dems and GOP.

2. Romney to enter late, he still has time apparently and either sweep the floor or do enough to split the vote ie stop Trump getting a majority of delegates.

Momentum is a wonderful thing and he has it right now. Given some of Clinton's past, it will be priceless to see how he goes after her if they go head to head.
I must say, the Donald is a lot more politically savvy than I gave him credit for and a very, very effective communicator, he can skewer someone with one sentence. His comment re Jeb being 'low on energy' was potent.

 

[The Punter]

Trump is leading in nine of the Super Tuesday states. He is the presumptive nominee.

None of this changes the dynamic regarding a straight Trump v Generic Democrat in the General - he can't win.

But in a three-corner contest involving Bloomberg? Throw out all the predictions.

At the very least, Bloomberg puts New York and New Jersey in play. You'd also have to argue he would also put in states in the same area with the same demographics into play (the significant ones under this scenario would be Pennsylvania and Ohio, but possibly also Maryland and Virginia).

Then you have to start thinking about California.

We'll know more this time next week, but the next nine months promise to be ground breaking, and brokered conventions and votes for President on the floor of the US House of Representatives are not out of the question.

 

[MaddAdam]

I'm not even really thinking of it through a political lens when I ask that question.

I mean, this is a guy who openly pines for the days he could punch a protestor in the face, or stands on stage laughing at opponents calling them pussys.

What's if Putin calls him a joke and a disgrace, or he super offends the Chinese (really that's a when and not if deal)?

What then? What's to say he won't go over the top the way he is known to do?

I guess I politely disagree with you on that one at this point.

Tony Abbott said he was going to shirtfront Putin.

What Trump is doing in the campaign is pure theatre. REad the Taibbi piece above on what Trump is doing.

Clinton has the bloody, bloody runs on the board.

Voted for the Iraq War. Oversaw the "surge" - defeated - into Afghanistan as Secretary of State, oversaw the knocking of Gaddafi which has resulted in the complete breakdown of Libya, put in place arrangements which sees jihadists using TOW missiles in Syria.

 

[MaddAdam]

Trump is leading in nine of the Super Tuesday states. He is the presumptive nominee.

None of this changes the dynamic regarding a straight Trump v Generic Democrat in the General - he can't win.

.

Wouldn't go betting on that.

People forget the Obama lesson - to win Democrats need to get big turnout - build the coalition. If they do that, they beat the straight rusted on 30 per cent Republican vote.

But is Generic Democrat going to get poor black folks in Gary Indiana to take a day off work and queue for five hours in the cold to pull the lever.

I don't think so.

 

[MaddAdam]

Also, if you listen to Trump's language, he's all about the deal. He's a dealmaker by nature, the bluster of for show. He's not a gimlet eyed ideologue.

 

[The Punter]

As I've indicated before, the most mediocre of all Democrat candidates for President, John Kerry, was one swing state (Ohio) away from the Presidency. The only state he won that hadn't been won by Democrats in every Presidential election since 1992 (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 & 2012) was New Hampshire, which Bush Jr managed to win in 2000 48-47 (thanks, Ralph). In a straight two-horse-race contest the Democrats come from a historically strong bedrock of support.

With a moderate, independently well-financed, third-party candidate from New York (Bloomberg) in the field, all bets are off.

 

[NSWCROW]

 

[MaddAdam]

As I've indicated before, the most mediocre of all Democrat candidates for President, John Kerry, was one swing state (Ohio) away from the Presidency. The only state he won that hadn't been won by Democrats in every Presidential election since 1992 (1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 & 2012) was New Hampshire, which Bush Jr managed to win in 2000 48-47 (thanks, Ralph). In a straight two-horse-race contest the Democrats come from a historically strong bedrock of support.

With a moderate, independently well-financed, third-party candidate from New York (Bloomberg) in the field, all bets are off.

Agree with Bloomberg.

But Kerry was running against the most divisive and weak sitting president - who recall lacked basic legitimacy in the eyes of many - in living memory.

 

[coerced]

Matt Taibbi gets a hell of a lot right here IMO

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224

Was about to post the same article. I think Taibbi has a good read on it because he (and Mark Ames) lived in Russia during the rise of Putin and can probably perceive a lot of similarities between Russia of the 90s and the US of today. The eXile was always a great read, and Ames still is for whatever publication he is working for.

Trump's popularity (and to the same extent, that of Sanders) is a manifestation of the dire straits the American middle and working classes find themselves in. Forty years of stagnant wages, and rising death rates (see Case and Deaton), is the story of middle America the past 15 years. The punditry keep dismissing Trump because they're too dim to see it, but there is a very good reason why he is popular, and he is smarter than they think. It's wishful thinking to state Trump has a ceiling or that he can't win the general. He doesn't have a ceiling, and within a couple of months he will be the odds on favourite for president.

Trump's rise is that of a strong man in a society where a neoliberal oligarchy has ripped off the average man, resulting in once reasonably economically secure people killing themselves. Just like Russia. At this stage he's America's Putin.

Bloomberg is a red herring.

 

[The Punter]

Three points:

1 - All the studies about Russians and the kind of leaders they prefer indicate strength over fairness. Polls done among Russians regularly come in with Stalin rating highly. It seems they are culturally more likely to want to be ruled with an iron first, and this is related to their sense of national pride.

2 - Trump is a real estate billionaire who inherit wealth and a position of privilege from his father. I'm not doubting he's very smart because he's managed to convince a plurality of Republicans that is part of the solution to the problem, and not part of the problem.

3 - I'm still not convinced of what a President Trump would do in any situation. Don't worry, we want as much ambiguity as possible in an election.

 

[Subutai]

http://www.inquisitr.com/2414517/hi...n-for-alleged-election-law-violations-report/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/23/judge-threatens-subpoena-against-clinton-emails/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...es-to-prosecute-hillary-clinton-as-president/

 

[MaddAdam]

Dunno about the Putin comparison but I do agree with the wider post.

That image of New England Townies in Pats merchandise and work boots who swear a lot is telling.

These are the people whose family is falling victim to the opiate epidemic,they know that relatively speaking their Dads had it better, they know their kids are never going to an expensive college 60 miles away in Boston and crucially they know both major parties have sold them out before and will do it again.

These are the people who hate the establishment because it hates them. And they know at a visceral level the establishment hates and is terrified by Trump.

He says he'll give them real jobs and he'll stick up for them against an elite that hates them.

It's a compelling electoral message.

 

[Subutai]

Bernie and Trump interestingly agree on a few issues

 

[coerced]

Three points:

1 - All the studies about Russians and the kind of leaders they prefer indicate strength over fairness. Polls done among Russians regularly come in with Stalin rating highly. It seems they are culturally more likely to want to be ruled with an iron first, and this is related to their sense of national pride.

And how does this not relate to the US? The situation of the Russian people has long been one of economic bleakness (for almost as long as Russia has existed), as compared to the US which is one of economic optimism. The well of US optimism has dried up, and the message (from both Trump and Sanders) is that everything has been used on keeping a rich elite comfortable. ANd it's not just empty rhetoric, it's provably true by most economic and health measures.

2 - Trump is a real estate billionaire who inherit wealth and a position of privilege from his father. I'm not doubting he's very smart because he's managed to convince a plurality of Republicans that is part of the solution to the problem, and not part of the problem.

This is no more baggage than any other candidate aside from Sanders carries, who suffers from lack of electability for other reasons.

3 - I'm still not convinced of what a President Trump would do in any situation. Don't worry, we want as much ambiguity as possible in an election.

Why do you have to be convinced?

 

[The Punter]

And how does this not relate to the US? The situation of the Russian people has long been one of economic bleakness (for almost as long as Russia has existed), as compared to the US which is one of economic optimism. The well of US optimism has dried up, and the message (from both Trump and Sanders) is that everything has been used on keeping a rich elite comfortable. And it's not just empty rhetoric, it's provably true by most economic and health measures.

Trump is that rich comfortable elite.

This is no more baggage than any other candidate aside from Sanders carries, who suffers from lack of electability for other reasons.

Well, he's a confessed socialist. We know what Sanders would do if elected, and a lot of it wouldn't be necessarily good. He's pledged to replace Obamacare with something akin to the British system, which may not be the best way to go.

Why do you have to be convinced?

Because I value sleep.

If elected, Trump would have control of the strongest and most deadly military that has ever existed, and he will be provoked by those who are not America's friends.

Do you know what he'd do in that situation? Has he conveyed any sense that he would be predictable in that situation? Diplomacy is based on an understanding of human nature and how rational human beings behave in certain situations. Trump has suggested he can coerce Mexico to build and pay for a wall to keep Mexican citizens who don't want to live in Mexico. Look, we may have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just a world-class opportunist and purveyor of falsehoods, but if he seriously thinks he can interact with other countries like that, then we'd have to concede that as far as Trump is concerned, diplomacy is something that happens to other people.

America faces it's "Latham moment". Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Kerry, McCain & Romney would have all made better Presidents than Trump will.

 

[coerced]

Trump is that rich comfortable elite.

Doesn't matter. He circumvents that by saying, unlike career politicians like Clinton/Bush, he owes no one their patronage.

Because I value sleep.

If elected, Trump would have control of the strongest and most deadly military that has ever existed, and he will be provoked by those who are not America's friends.

Do you know what he'd do in that situation? Has he conveyed any sense that he would be predictable in that situation? Diplomacy is based on an understanding of human nature and how rational human beings behave in certain situations. Trump has suggested he can coerce Mexico to build and pay for a wall to keep Mexican citizens who don't want to live in Mexico. Look, we may have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he's just a world-class opportunist and purveyor of falsehoods, but if he seriously thinks he can interact with other countries like that, then we'd have to concede that as far as Trump is concerned, diplomacy is something that happens to other people.

Are you a registered voter in the US? If not, it's not about whether you can be convinced or whether you can sleep at night.

I'm not sure how Trump as president gives you less sleep than Clinton, who as Secretary of State sold arms to Gulf Arab States after they donated to the Clinton Foundation. You know, the exact thing people who decry American foreign policy oppose, done the Clinton's own self-enrichment.

America faces it's "Latham moment". Goldwater, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Kerry, McCain & Romney would have all made better Presidents than Trump will.

Framing the Trump movement as a "Latham moment" is extraordinarily narrow. Republican primaries and caucuses are getting record turnouts.

 

[The Punter]

Doesn't matter. He circumvents that by saying, unlike career politicians like Clinton/Bush, he owes no one their patronage.

Well, it does matter, because by claiming to represent the little guy he's being disingenuous at best.

Are you a registered voter in the US? If not, it's not about whether you can be convinced or whether you can sleep at night.

What an extraordinarily narrow assessment of the situation. Perhaps if he was running for President of a small African nation that wouldn't affect me. But he's running for the job known as "Leader of the Free World". Trump has done nothing to suggest he can make the world a safer place.

Framing the Trump movement as a "Latham moment" is extraordinarily narrow. Republican primaries and caucuses are getting record turnouts.

I don't know what turnout has to do with us avoiding a "Latham moment", but I'm happy to concede the inappropriateness of the comparison and instead compare Trump to that famous Australian demagogue, Pauline Hanson.

But that only works if Hanson was the leader of one of the major political parties, rather than the disgraced disendorsed local candidate of one of them.

 

[coerced]

Well, it does matter, because by claiming to represent the little guy he's being disingenuous at best.

Where does he claim to represent the little guy?

What an extraordinarily narrow assessment of the situation. Perhaps if he was running for President of a small African nation that wouldn't affect me. But he's running for the job known as "Leader of the Free World". Trump has done nothing to suggest he can make the world a safer place.

Neither have any of the other candidates. His remarks on the Iraq War and US military imperialism make him the most dovish candidate in the field, aside from Sanders.

I don't know what turnout has to do with us avoiding a "Latham moment", but I'm happy to concede the inappropriateness of the comparison and instead compare Trump to that famous Australian demagogue, Pauline Hanson.

But that only works if Hanson was the leader of one of the major political parties, rather than the disgraced disendorsed local candidate of one of them.

The Hanson comparison is once again gauche and misguided.

You are trying to understand Trump as something akin to what has gone before within a narrow frame of reference that you understand (ie English speaking democracies), but your comparisons lack any meat because the situation for the average American is unlike anything experienced in the Anglophone world.

Half a million Americans have died prematurely essentially as a result of economic decline. If you don't understand that as a factor for why Trump is popular and can win, and think the politics of the US should remain as it always has, then how do you think democracies function?

 

[The Punter]

You are trying to understand Trump as something akin to what has gone before within a narrow frame of reference that you understand (ie English speaking democracies), but your comparisons lack any meat because the situation for the average American is unlike anything experienced in the Anglophone world.

This analysis invites all to not even bother with trying to discuss what is happening at the moment with this election, because Trump is so "paradigm shattering" that it cannot be compared with anything that has gone before, so we may as well not bother talking about it. Perhaps Trump can carry the District of Columbia's 3 electoral voters, because we're through the looking glass here, people.

We need to remember this when bringing up historical winners of the New Hampshire and South Carolina GOP primaries.

Make no mistake: Trump's success is largely due to the lack of quality in the rest of the GOP field.

 

[coerced]

Make no mistake: Trump's success is largely due to the lack of quality in the rest of the GOP field.

Nonsense. Read my last (edited) paragraph.

Abstract notions like what Trump's stance is on foreign policy matter little to families who have fallen into despair and seen relatives die prematurely as a result.