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

[Forward Press]

Intelligence failures on Bush's watch. Catastrophic ones. This stuff can't be laid at Clinton's door.

You do know that it takes many years to plan something like 9/11, and that stuff like the cruise missile on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant happened during the Clinton years yeah? al-Qaeda was around long before Bush came to power.

May 2001 was only four months into Bush's tenure.

Wasn't the crowd jam packed with Republican establishment stooges?

Probably. Point being that it is probably safe to stereotype Republican politicians as more hawkish and pro-war. It is now universally acknowledged there were no WMDs in Iraq and in hindsight the invasion was a mistake, but Trump gets boo-ed because of it - and the boo-ers don't understand it actually helps him win the candidacy and ultimately presidency.

 

[BoxMatrix]

Bernie is finally cooked. Super Tuesday will be anther bloodbath. He won't see out March.

Now just waiting on the Republican nomination...

 

[MaddAdam]

You do know that it takes many years to plan something like 9/11, and that stuff like the cruise missile on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant happened during the Clinton years yeah? al-Qaeda was around long before Bush came to power.

May 2001 was only four months into Bush's tenure.

This is kind of my point, Clinton was very aware of the Qaeda threat - them blowing up two embassies does that - and it was very clear that an attack on the homeland was being planned. Yet Bush didn't seem to do anything to react to the heightened situation.

It happened on his watch.

 

[james Dean]

Bernie is finally cooked. Super Tuesday will be anther bloodbath. He won't see out March.

Now just waiting on the Republican nomination...

Both parties will be decided within a month I believe. Trump will win all but Texas on Tuesday

 

[MaddAdam]

Both parties will be decided within a month I believe. Trump will win all but Texas on Tuesday

If Rubio can't win Florida then surely he's brown bread?

 

[swingdog]

The Republican establishment not going down without a fight even if they see Trump as the presumptive nominee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/u...c=edit_na_20160227&nlid=70059035&ref=cta&_r=0

Can't imagine the ads that are going to run: "As Republicans, you elected this lunatic to lead us in the Presidential election in November. However, here in the Georgia 3rd District, I'd like you to forget about him and vote for me. This election is about ensuring a strong House of Representatives - we weren't really serious about the Presidency anyway."

 

[pjcrows]

Trump v Clinton ay. Let the games begin.

 

[happy_eagle]

The only hope for the GOP beating Trump is for one of Rubio or Cruz to pull out and run a Rubio/Cruz combined ticket, but neither candidate would be willing to concede until the last minute when it may be too late.

 

[pjcrows]

Hear a lot of talk about a brokered convention as a chance for Rubio to get the nomination - no chance. If it happened that Trump wins easily the most delegates but doesn't get the majority, and the establishment installed Rubio ahead of him at the convention, Trump simply run as an Independent and Clinton would win in a landslide.

They will bite their tongues and go with him but try as hard as they can for an establishment VP. Christie's endorsement is the first step.

 

[pjcrows]

The only hope for the GOP beating Trump is for one of Rubio or Cruz to pull out and run a Rubio/Cruz combined ticket, but neither candidate would be willing to concede until the last minute when it may be too late.

They'd rather wait. Have Trump lose to Hillary in the general then have a crack in 2020.

 

[MaddAdam]

The Republican establishment not going down without a fight even if they see Trump as the presumptive nominee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/u...c=edit_na_20160227&nlid=70059035&ref=cta&_r=0

Can't imagine the ads that are going to run: "As Republicans, you elected this lunatic to lead us in the Presidential election in November. However, here in the Georgia 3rd District, I'd like you to forget about him and vote for me. This election is about ensuring a strong House of Representatives - we weren't really serious about the Presidency anyway."

Will just be like when local MPs here or in UK have run for their seat with a deeply unpopular leader.

 

[Forward Press]

If Trump leads the delegate count there is no way the RNC will not endorse him, it would beggar belief because it is pretty much pushing the self-destruct button on a Republican win in the presidential race. I hope it happens though because the lulz would be tremendous and Clinton/Sanders would have a free ride to the White House.

I suspect in any event the Dems will claw back significant ground in the Congressional elections.

 

[happy_eagle]

Super Tuesday will make or break Ted Cruz I reckon, depending on how he does in the deeply religious south

Alabama - 50 Delegates
Arkansas - 40
Georgia - 76
Oklahoma - 43
Tennessee - 58
Texas - 155

Thats over 400 votes right there

 

[The Speaker]

Super Tuesday will make or break Ted Cruz I reckon, depending on how he does in the deeply religious south

Alabama - 50 Delegates
Arkansas - 40
Georgia - 76
Oklahoma - 43
Tennessee - 58
Texas - 155

Thats over 400 votes right there

While for Rubio it'll just be break.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Bernie is finally cooked. Super Tuesday will be anther bloodbath. He won't see out March.

Now just waiting on the Republican nomination...

Sanders would require a pretty major miracle from here but he's got the money to keep going and I think he will. If he's honest about the campaign being about more than electing a president then I reckon he'll stay in it just to get as much attention for his ideas as possible and try to commit Clinton to shifting more to the left.

 

[james Dean]

Super Tuesday will make or break Ted Cruz I reckon, depending on how he does in the deeply religious south

Alabama - 50 Delegates
Arkansas - 40
Georgia - 76
Oklahoma - 43
Tennessee - 58
Texas - 155

Thats over 400 votes right there

I can see Cruz winning Texas, barely. The rest will all go to Trump and the race will be as good as over.

Is it almost time to start preparing for Trump vs Clinton? I can't see either being toppled from here. Does this open the door for any independent runs? Bloomberg? Romney?

 

[The Punter]

I think Trump on the ballot in November means Bloomberg runs.

 

[Richo83]

Can't be stuffed looking through the entire thread, but does anyone find it interesting how the gop has basically split on the issues of free trade and immigration? We have the moderates who are concerned with gaining the latino vote and pushing for reform which would help business, competing with the nationalist aspect of the gop who want protection against immigration and free trade deals. I read people like Ann Coulter calling the TPP global communism. In reality the capitalist right like free trade and immigration because it drives down costs of business. I think the gop needs to figure out whether it supports small government and the interests of business or whether it doesn't.

 

[swingdog]

Can't be stuffed looking through the entire thread, but does anyone find it interesting how the gop has basically split on the issues of free trade and immigration? We have the moderates who are concerned with gaining the latino vote and pushing for reform which would help business, competing with the nationalist aspect of the gop who want protection against immigration and free trade deals. I read people like Ann Coulter calling the TPP global communism. In reality the capitalist right like free trade and immigration because it drives down costs of business. I think the gop needs to figure out whether it supports small government and the interests of business or whether it doesn't.

I think the split comes down to which part of business benefits from free trade and immigration.

I heard some good analysis on the TPP, for example, which shows that as the US doesn't really export much in the way of things anymore, it's their service industries they want to support (e.g. financial services, copyrighted materials) and these are the biggest beneficiaries of the TPP. By contrast, as part of the negotiations, they're prepared to write off things like dairy (giving NZ farmers access) because that isn't such a big part of the economy and the end result will be cheaper milk for consumers. The problem for Republicans is that those sectors that benefit from TPP (Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley) support Democrats more.

The immigration one is trickier because the biggest beneficiaries of cheap, illegal immigration are agricultural producers. That's one that is a difficult line to walk for Republicans. I am guessing their pitch during primaries is to the "they took our jerbs" crowd, when it isn't illegal immigration that's done that, it's the way that the economy has restructured in recent decades.

 

[Richo83]

I'm also curious why the gop hate Trump, is it because he's got a mixed history in truly supporting conservative posoitions like healthcare? Or is it because business wants the tpp and wants flexible labor laws? Or both? Something else?

 

[The Speaker]

Can't be stuffed looking through the entire thread, but does anyone find it interesting how the gop has basically split on the issues of free trade and immigration? We have the moderates who are concerned with gaining the latino vote and pushing for reform which would help business, competing with the nationalist aspect of the gop who want protection against immigration and free trade deals. I read people like Ann Coulter calling the TPP global communism. In reality the capitalist right like free trade and immigration because it drives down costs of business. I think the gop needs to figure out whether it supports small government and the interests of business or whether it doesn't.

They aren't moderates. The are liberals that joined with conservatives during the Cold War. Now the war is over, and such parties (which exist in all two party systems at the moment) are falling apart due to not having a common enemy.

 

[Richo83]

I think the split comes down to which part of business benefits from free trade and immigration.

I heard some good analysis on the TPP, for example, which shows that as the US doesn't really export much in the way of things anymore, it's their service industries they want to support (e.g. financial services, copyrighted materials) and these are the biggest beneficiaries of the TPP. By contrast, as part of the negotiations, they're prepared to write off things like dairy (giving NZ farmers access) because that isn't such a big part of the economy and the end result will be cheaper milk for consumers. The problem for Republicans is that those sectors that benefit from TPP (Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley) support Democrats more.

It is interesting, and I feel like ideologically, the gop may have to shift towards more protectionist policies now. I'm not sure they can just take up the positions of the Wall St Journal now. Their economic position has been low tariffs, low taxes, low economic borders. But who is going to vote for that now, the wealthy? As you point out, they don't vote democrat. They basically have the manufacturing workers and agricultural workers left, but they're getting hurt by free trade. So the gop's economic demographic is shrinking, and the people who used to just vote republican are starting to lose their jobs. There are winners and losers in trade, sure, but it feels like the losers used to vote gop and are now wising up.

Trump is smart, he sniffed the wind and realised that there were more votes in Main St than Wall St. Problem is that the gop is still tied to Wall St policies. While they may not like Trump, I doubt promoting a guy who supports the TPP or immigration reform is going to help them either. That said, it'd be interesting to see how many republicans and how many Americans in general actually support the TPP and free trade in general.

The immigration one is trickier because the biggest beneficiaries of cheap, illegal immigration are agricultural producers. That's one that is a difficult line to walk for Republicans. I am guessing their pitch during primaries is to the "they took our jerbs" crowd, when it isn't illegal immigration that's done that, it's the way that the economy has restructured in recent decades.

Yeah but I'm not sure saying "don't blame Jose, blame that machine that's replaced your job" will work for many of the base. And while there are agricultural producers who benefit from cheap labor, there's workers who used to work for those producers but have been replaced by a foreign worker, or a machine.

That said, it'd be interesting to see where the dems head on issues of economics too. Do dems support free trade and immigration reform? Is there a part of the left who wishes for a return to protectionism and anti-globalisation?

 

[Richo83]

They aren't moderates. The are liberals that joined with conservatives during the Cold War. Now the war is over, and such parties (which exist in all two party systems at the moment) are falling apart due to not having a common enemy.

Well, they're actually capitalists, they're the Wall St crowd who promote free trade and immigration reform because a) they think immigration reform will win them votes with latinos, b) ideological support for free trade coming from capitalists and libertarians and c) business pushing them to support free trade.

If Trump, being the business man he is was true to his past, he would support the TPP and flexible labor markets given he has used free trade agreements and flexible labor markets to his advantage. But Trump is an opportunist. But his past does show why Wall St would support these two ideas.

 

[The Speaker]

Well, they're actually capitalists, they're the Wall St crowd who promote free trade and immigration reform because a) they think immigration reform will win them votes with latinos, b) ideological support for free trade coming from capitalists and libertarians and c) business pushing them to support free trade.

If Trump, being the business man he is was true to his past, he would support the TPP and flexible labor markets given he has used free trade agreements and flexible labor markets to his advantage. But Trump is an opportunist. But his past does show why Wall St would support these two ideas.

You are describing one part of liberalism.

 

[Richo83]

You are describing one part of liberalism.

I thought you mean liberal in the American sense, which generally means left-winger.