Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The debate thread is done with, and a lot of the time the Trump thread ends up diving into the wider primary anyway, so why don't we just have a thread on the primaries as a whole?



To start out with, here's the current betting odds of the various candidates winning their primary nods

And an article on whether or not the Republican establishment is losing control of the party to more outsider candidates like Trump, and even Carson and Cruz



There's a whole lot more in there, if you're curious.



And the current state of the polls? According to the real clear politics average (which is simply averaging out every major polling firm- who are getting fairly different results. FiveThirtyEight does more weighing for accuracy, but they haven't started yet this year), the contenders with over 5 percent are:

Trump 22.0
Bush 10.7
Carson 9.7
Walker 7.7
Rubio 7.3
Cruz 7.3
Fiorina 6.3

(Paul, Kasich, and Huckabee are all not far behind at 4.3, Christie near them at 3.3, but those four are clearly in a separate pack at the moment, at least in my view)

But with the additional note that the last Fox poll put it at Trump-Carson-Cruz, with Bush all the way back in forth. Trend seems to be Bush sliding, the other outsider candidates rising. And Fiorina gaining from her performance in the B-list debate.

Oh, and I think I heard something about the Democrats holding a primary too. 54 Clinton, 22 Sanders. And the third place person isn't even running (Biden) and has more than all the lower ones combined, so really, this is a two-horse race. Sanders has a fanatical following among his group, but it remains quite questionable if he'll be able to break out, while Hillary has a much wider support base that makes her position very stable.


Probably later posts of mine here will include a lot more charts and graphs, but hopefully that's enough to kick us off ^^

A thread already exists for this.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=609292&pagenumber=26#post15322294

Kinda, but a lot of that was 'who will win the final thing?' rather than 'how is each primary going?'. Also, no-one's posted on it in most of a month.

I dont know why we need two threads about the exact same thing tbh, you could just post this there, and talk about it.

Well, the primaries are a subset of the overall race, aren't they? So we can use this thread for primary discussion, and the other for general presidential election discussion.

Dude TI whats your deal? Lol. Q99 made an overall thread for the general primaries..

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the primaries are a subset of the overall race, aren't they? So we can use this thread for primary discussion, and the other for general presidential election discussion.


'Xactly.


And for one primary thing:

Bobby Jindal says Scott Walker's healthcare plan is too liberal, and calls it Obamacare lite.

Which I think is pretty rich, coming from someone who has no healthcare plan.

Mike Huckabee invokes MLK to criticize the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/mike-huckabee-black-lives-matter-martin-luther-king-121524.html

My take: I don't think he's wrong that MLK wouldn't be comfortable with the movement, but that isn't an indictment of the movement, just a reflection on how MLK's worldview was a product of his era, and I don't think he'd understand that #BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean other lives don't, as its critics (like Huckabee) see it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Mike Huckabee invokes MLK to criticize the #BlackLivesMatter movement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/mike-huckabee-black-lives-matter-martin-luther-king-121524.html

My take: I don't think he's wrong that MLK wouldn't be comfortable with the movement, but that isn't an indictment of the movement, just a reflection on how MLK's worldview was a product of his era, and I don't think he'd understand that #BlackLivesMatter doesn't mean other lives don't, as its critics (like Huckabee) see it.

One nice quote I heard, " 'Save the Rainforests' doesn't mean '**** all other forests.' "


And I really don't see MLK having much problem with BLM... he knew full well the first step to getting heard was drawing attention, and the 60s civil rights movement drew far more negative attention than BLM ever did.


Old white people uninvolved with civil rights trying to invoke MLK to speak against a movement aiming for black equality, is something I think mainly shows how out of touch they are with who they're talking about. Granted, I can't speak for Martin Luthor King Jr. either, but he was not a 'don't rock the boat' type, to say the least. Like, that's the opposite of him. There were 'don't rock the boat' civil rights leaders, and they're largely forgotten due to that not remotely working and people like King and his 'let's hold marches where ever it takes to gain the attention of our problems and make speeches calling people out,' were far more successful.


I don't think Huckabee's comment is a very savvy move, but on the flip side, he's not trying to get the black vote either, and it's not a major thing on the Republican side of the primary, so it's not like it's gonna hurt him. The Democrats do definitely have to pay much closer attention to the subject since they're the ones who will be arguing that they can represent these communities.

While MLK certainly wasn't a "don't rock the boat" guy, I don't think he would approve of the current movement either.

Originally posted by psmith81992
While MLK certainly wasn't a "don't rock the boat" guy, I don't think he would approve of the current movement either.
I think "don't rock the boat" describes him well, to a point.

He understood that there was only so much blacks could hope to attain in the society they lived in, and compared to other major black leaders (ahem, Malcolm X) he was rather cautious and modest in his goals and methods. We don't know how he'd react though if he saw that decades after the Civil Rights Act there's so much de facto discrimination.

I think it's useful to draw a parallel with feminism here. Feminism has multiple waves, the first, which ran from the 19th century till the middle of the 20th sought to eliminate de jure inequality of the sexes (women's suffrage, equal property rights, etc), whereas the second and third waves have focused on fighting de facto inequality. That's what #BlackLivesMatter is for black people.

Interesting articles. I like betting odds. They're a nice way to cut through bias. Works that way in sports too. Emotional influences affect the narrative too often in sports commentary, and sports predictions. The Vegas line is usually a better indicator of who's more likely to win. Ironically, though I don't think he'll get the nomination, if I were a gambler, I'd absolutely take Trump at 40/1. It's just too good a return for someone currently leading the polls, even if he's ultimately a glass cannon.

There are some interesting remarks here - and I've seen them elsewhere - about Republicans and their grasp on the party as a whole. While I don't necessarily think there's an "entrenched" Republican party as opposed to party "outsiders", I do think the party has a bit of an identity crisis. And has had one at least since Bush was in office and likely before that. There was a sense at the time that they needed to rally around Bush or risk vacating the White House for another 8 years after Clinton. And they were probably right. But there was a bit of desperation, since no one else had the name or stature to invoke such a push.

Economics aside, I think the country is quite obviously trending socially progressive, and Republicans will need to find some way of expanding their base if they don't want to be on the outside looking in (to the White House) for the vast majority of the next 20 years or so. There are viable ways for a Republican to win many key swing states, but if the party lines stay the same, as do their stance on social issues, I'm not sure they'll be able to say that in, say, 10 years.

Anyway. Obvious Dem. money is on Hilary. And while I'd take the field over any single Republican candidate right now, Bush is probably the safest, since I can see the others burning bright then dying out.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think "don't rock the boat" describes him well, to a point.

I think the standard depiction of him gets overly sanitized and painted as less confrontational because some people find that uncomfortable. White people like to paint him as this patient, non-confrontational figure... but that's not really accurate.

A Riot is the language of the unheard is one of his quotes, after all. And it's not like the BLM crew are even rioting.




Note that while he was non violent, his methods were very confrontational.

Indeed, He famously said that one of the greatest stumbling blocks to freedom was the moderate who valued order and not rocking the boat over taking direct action

If one march was met with no reaction and didn't make the news, he'd go somewhere else where there would be. Non-violence, but driven to make a splash and be heard.




I don't think it's quite the same. "The system kill us and treat us as less worth protecting," is something that'd resonate with him too. I mean, it was around in his time. This isn't a new wave, it's just, 'yea, the stuff that was happening before is still happening, just less overtly.'


Really, this is something that could take up it's own thread...

Originally posted by Digi
Interesting articles. I like betting odds. They're a nice way to cut through bias. Works that way in sports too. Emotional influences affect the narrative too often in sports commentary, and sports predictions. The Vegas line is usually a better indicator of who's more likely to win. Ironically, though I don't think he'll get the nomination, if I were a gambler, I'd absolutely take Trump at 40/1. It's just too good a return for someone currently leading the polls, even if he's ultimately a glass cannon.

Right, odds makers don't make money by leading with their guts.




Establishment is the term. And basically it just means, someone connected to and supported by the traditional political power base. Pretty much every winning Republican candidate for a long time is Establishment.



I think there was some unease brewing starting around the time of Bush 1, but it was one that gradually grew and when they were winning, seemed to subside. One of the big problems the Republican party had is every time it doesn't win, it grows increasingly uneasy with the idea of the 'loyal opposition.'

In the 70s and 80s, when a party lost, they'd acknowledge the other side won, but view themselves as a check, and use their potential-stopping power to make deals. Starting with Bill Clinton, that became less of a thing, the fillibusters started to rise, and the push tended to be more of the 'sink the other side' variety (remember the impeachment?). Even so, things were controllable at that point and didn't get really out of hand til Obama, because with his arrival, they decided to open the floodgates and let the 'angry grassroots' camp, the Tea Party, in en mass because they thought it'd give them the power to win-win and push the Democrats out. Since that didn't happen, now they've got this lump of anger they've let it, that's also angry at them for not winning, and they need to deal with it more than the democrats do, it can't just be set on their foes.




Ironically, the best way to gain power would be to give on one issue, be it race or whatever, but they seem to have put themselves in a place where they can't bring themselves to do that.




Yea, Bush is the safe bet, but I do wonder if his fairly low key play-it-safe approach will work in this multi-way rumble which is so much about getting attention. He hasn't really gone in and shown himself much of a scrapper, not like even Walker and Rubio have.


One interesting thing with primaries is overperforming or underperforming often matters more than pure numbers. If Bush spends a lot of time in 3rd or 4th, it makes him look the weaker candidate, even if his numbers aren't too bad.

I have to disagree with you there. While it's true that the country is slowly trending socially progressive, economically it is still largely fiscally conservative and economically is where the candidate will win.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I have to disagree with you there. While it's true that the country is slowly trending socially progressive, economically it is still largely fiscally conservative and economically is where the candidate will win.

Current social zeitgeist says otherwise, imo. But disagreements like this are part of the reason we have elections, and why different politicians elect to try different strategies. Because I agree that having a job and money in your wallet are bigger than any one single social issue. But I don't see the kind of fervor for any one economic approach that I see for all kinds of social issues.

Originally posted by Q99

...snipped for space

I like your point about the Tea Party. One could argue that it's done a lot to hurt the party, because several candidates have to court Tea Party-ers bc they're where they are bc of that base. But in doing so they lose out on a significant portion of moderates. It's not wholly responsible for the party's identity crisis, as I termed it. But it certainly hasn't helped.

Originally posted by Digi

I like your point about the Tea Party. One could argue that it's done a lot to hurt the party, because several candidates have to court Tea Party-ers bc they're where they are bc of that base. But in doing so they lose out on a significant portion of moderates. It's not wholly responsible for the party's identity crisis, as I termed it. But it certainly hasn't helped.

Yes, I don't think it started things, but I think it was the breaking point.

Before the tea party, the Republican party had flexibility in how it could. Taking in the tea party really set it on a path, a decision that it's way-to-expand was in this direction.

Its fun watching CNN suckle up to Trump and shun and harass Hilary.

She's done, soon as FBI bring up charges, she will be dropping out.

Its so fun watching Q99 suck up to Hilary here all day. Everyone including all major new channels including MSNBC, CNN and FOX are aligned against Hilary for her continuous scandals with the emails which she has purged herself and lied to the FBI and the public as well as destroy evidence.

"Oh I dunno, I kept one secured server in my bathroom and another in a barn."

It's kinda funny how we've been hearing the "But this scandal will totally sink Hillary, for real this time," for years and it's still yet to actually happened.

I'll believe it when I see it, not when people who thought Benghazi was a career sinker say it is. Current word on the e-mails is "Yes, there were classified e-mails on there... because people sent her unlabeled classified ones, that she didn't have a reason to believe were classified." Which, woo-hoo? Doesn't sound a campaign sinker to me.

Also note: I find noting who is and isn't ahead, who's got stronger fundamentals or upcoming hurdles, and by hurdles I mean stuff like 'needs to get this demographic or that one,' (Bernie) or 'will they be able to maintain their position when their foes stop dividing the opposition vote such much?' (Trump- and much to my surprise, things are moving in his favor there), rather than trying to convince people here that various events are game enders/winners.


Or to put it another way, I'm not trying to convince you that X or Y will win the presidency, I'm going to talk about what the campaigns currently look like.


Heck, since we're talking primaries, I'm only talking Hillary vs Sanders anyway. No need to get so defensive yet, hold it for the main race when she'll actually be taking on Republicans.

Also:


It will be fun remembering this when people complain about liberal media bias later on.

It is true at this point, the media is not going out of it's way to do Hillary any favors. She's a clear front runner, and drama-wise, that's no good, is it? It's much more exciting if they can make it look like Sanders is on her heels.

New polls show Clinton 5 point ahead of Trump. This was only 2 weeks ago when everyone said "oh trump isn't serious..."

It will come down to Capitalizm vs Socialism, and Sad to say for you but Trump will be the next president and steer America back in the direction it once sailed.

Not only that but well get rid of the excess fat and stop this anchor baby problem once and for all. It's absurd to think we know people wait at the border till ready to pop, cross illegally to have the kid and then they are just "Americans" as well as their family cause their family broke th law.

You should bet some money on Trump winning.

I don't know Digi, you might hear more about "social" issues in the news, but I've always held that economic issues win elections. Some people care about same sex marriage and other equality issues. Everybody cares about jobs, insurance, etc.

I think Clinton would be far better for the economy than Trump.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think Clinton would be far better for the economy than Trump.

On the economy? I disagree. I think that's the one thing Trump has her beat on.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think Clinton would be far better for the economy than Trump.

I'm with PSmith. That's probably the one thing that Trump will Trump her on, solidly.


Edit - Wait...maybe not. His tariff ideas may be bad.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/28/news/economy/donald-trump-polls-taxes-wages/

With Trump we will most likely get the other 15 GOP hopefuls as cabnier members and Carson as the VP.

Solid

I could also see Romey as Sec State. He could fix everything Hilary has done.

Whoever said Hilary would be better with the economy is a joke. She charges schools $100k to speak at them which is a burden on the school and students. Trump does not take money from anyone.

Hilary good on the economy is like saying Hilary was good with emails. If she can't run her email server to code, she can't run the country.

Isn't everyone here tired of the Cliton Controversy and the excuse "OH MY, I had no idea."

Why Romney as Secretary of State? He has literally zero foreign policy experience.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

Whoever said Hilary would be better with the economy is a joke. She charges schools $100k to speak at them which is a burden on the school and students. Trump does not take money from anyone.

Trump charges the same or more for speaking engagements as Hillary Clinton

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary good on the economy is like saying Hilary was good with emails. If she can't run her email server to code, she can't run the country.

Isn't everyone here tired of the Cliton Controversy and the excuse "OH MY, I had no idea."

So far it seems like she has not done anything wrong regarding her email server, we'll see how it develops, but currently it is a scandal without evidence of wrongdoing.

Reminds me of the time you said Iran deal is a good deal Omega, I see you bowed out of your own thread too.

Bardock you joking right? She lied and said she never sent or recorded classified documents, they have found over 60 already. But to you that's not breaking the law or wrong doing I guess.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Why Romney as Secretary of State? He has literally zero foreign policy experience.

So you are one of those people that thinks the only people that can run government is government

Are you so lost in la la land with the Horrendous Iran deal and have forgotten "by the people and for the people."

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Bardock you joking right? She lied and said she never sent or recorded classified documents, they have found over 60 already. But to you that's not breaking the law or wrong doing I guess.

I'm not joking. You pretend like she has been committed of wrongdoing. When we really don't know anything yet. The 60 you bring up were flagged as potentially containing classified information (albeit at the lowest levels), even if they did definitely contain classified information that does not mean Clinton did anything wrong yet. So like I said, right know we know almost nothing about this "scandal", your condemnation of her just shows your politics, not any conviction to the case.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you are one of those people that thinks the only people that can run government is government

Are you so lost in la la land with the Horrendous Iran deal and have forgotten "by the people and for the people."

Omega Vision just asked for what reasons you think Romney would be a good Secretary of State.

Petraus got fined and forced out for less Bardock. Don't play your stupid games with me.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Petraus got fined and forced out for less Bardock. Don't play your stupid games with me.

That's really hard to compare, especially since we don't actually know what Clinton did exactly (or Petraeus)...and one may argue that Director of the CIA is a different position than Secretary of State, and different standards apply.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you are one of those people that thinks the only people that can run government is government

Are you so lost in la la land with the Horrendous Iran deal and have forgotten "by the people and for the people."
Thank you for not actually addressing my question with this non sequitir of a post.

I'm not really opposed to Romney getting a cabinet position, but why Secretary of State of all positions? That would seem to be the one job (outside of Sec Def) that he's least qualified for.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's really hard to compare, especially since we don't actually know what Clinton did exactly (or Petraeus)...and one may argue that Director of the CIA is a different position than Secretary of State, and different standards apply.



Keep excusing your side.

Typical liberal

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Thank you for not actually addressing my question with this non sequitir of a post.

I'm not really opposed to Romney getting a cabinet position, but why Secretary of State of all positions? That would seem to be the one job (outside of Sec Def) that he's least qualified for.

He has Charisma.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial


Keep excusing your side.

Typical liberal

I'm not excusing, I'm just not prematurely condemning.

Goddamn. Some of the liberals on this site can actually argue rationally while some conservatives here scream bias. Life is a trip.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Goddamn. Some of the liberals on this site can actually argue rationally while some conservatives here scream bias. Life is a trip.

I assume you are not talking to me, Did I scream bias here? Or are you confusing me with Omega, who said the AP and Reuters are biased sources?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He has Charisma.
So does Marco Rubio, with the added bonus that he's bilingual.

Carly Fiorina would probably make an excellent negotiator.

Edit: Actually, wasn't Romney's lack of charisma always one of his big failings? He's got great hair and he looks 20 years younger than he is, but that's not the same thing as charisma.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So does Marco Rubio, with the added bonus that he's bilingual.

Carly Fiorina would probably make an excellent negotiator.

Edit: Actually, wasn't Romney's lack of charisma always one of his big failings? He's got great hair and he looks 20 years younger than he is, but that's not the same thing as charisma.

Forget it, maybe you are right, but keep dodging in that Iranian thread though.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Forget it, maybe you are right, but keep dodging in that Iranian thread though.
I'm willing to concede that I was wrong about the no-American (and Canadian) inspectors thing, but as Q99 pointed out, it doesn't really matter as there are plenty of other countries we can count on like France, Germany, the UK, Australia, Japan, etc. Certainly they don't need to be Americans to do a good job. And Iran's reason is diplomatically valid, if petty--they don't have relations with us.

Glad we can at least both admit when we are wrong.

Btw- It strikes me as almost pointless if Hillary *did* drop out now.

It'd be pretty easy for Biden to gear up and take her place as a well supported establishment candidate. He'd lack the first-women-president appeal himself, but as a sitting Veep attached to a successful President, he'd be in a strong position. Heck, Elizabeth Warren could likely step up too.

I still don't think Sanders would have much of a chance, but remember, in the past, people joining at this time was normal or even early.


Ideally, for those scandal-focused, what you want is for someone to be hit by a massive scandal either right before or right after they get the nod. That's when it is very hard for someone to take their place.


Strategically, a killing blow this early doesn't accomplish much. It's like on the other side, of the Republican candidates, "Trump had a scandal? We've got no problem with Bush anyway. Bush drops out due to a kitten related incident that killed his support? Ok, then Walker, you're up. Walker dropped out because he had a vision from Ra the Sun God causing him to convert? Rubio, you're in." Everyone has reserves and replacements.

On the flip side, if those happen way later... "Why did Walker have to convert to Ra the Sun God the week of the Primary when he was polling in second?? Now we have to make up ground and deal with the fact we supported a Ra-ist for so long!".


Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

It will come down to Capitalizm vs Socialism, and Sad to say for you but Trump will be the next president and steer America back in the direction it once sailed.

Pffhehe, Hillary a socialist? That *is* funny! Someone should tell all her corporate buddies that she hobnobs with so much.

If we raised taxes and spent more on infrastructure, that'd bring us back to where we were during the booming 50s and 60s.

I don't think you realize this, but we're still near a low-eb taxes and such wise, and Clinton is very middle-of-the-road economically by traditional standards. She's only to the left by modern Republican standards, which are an economic set the country hasn't used, or at least not for well over a century, I think you'd have to go back to the Gilded Age to get something similar to those.

We can't go back to something we never really did in the first place.

It does bug me that so many people don't know our economic history and freak out about going to policies that worked for some of our most prosperous decades in recent memory...

Do you misconstrue words on purpose?. Or do you always miss the point and context?

Trump (Capitalist)

Vs

Sanders (Socialist)

Wake up and smell the coffee. That's how going down, you trying to dismiss it as no one trusts a Clinton or a Bush.

Now I see why we never get along, you in the wrong crowd. If you supported Sanders I would respect you.

Supporting A Clinton still?

It's a huge oversimplification to boil it down to "socialism vs capitalism."

There are other worldviews and ideologies at issue, such as Trump's brand of economic nationalism.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you misconstrue words on purpose?. Or do you always miss the point and context?

Trump (Capitalist)

Vs

Sanders (Socialist)

Ah, yes, Sanders is a socialist.

I will note, however, you left out 'Sanders' from your message which is why I didn't notice that, and we were just talking Hillary. I thought you were doing the ol' 'call any Dem a socialist' thing




Oh, Sanders? He's got two big reasons to not support him. He's against pretty much all foreign trade agreements- which would be bad for a trade based power like us.

And he's for putting the Fed more under congress. Now considering the Federal Reserve is one of the more competent organizations around, and Congress tends to make things incredibly partisan, this is a really bad idea.

All this stuff is also things the President has a lot of discretion on, so it's not like they could be blocked too easily.

Sanders has good points and bad points, but unfortunately his bad points are the one a President could do easily, and his good points are ones that'd have to go through congress and are unlikely to get done. So, good guy in some respects, but in others he has some bad calls, ones that could cost the US a lot.

Surprised you support him out of the Dem side because he is openly more socialist... I will say I like his more socialist polities a fair amount, butagain, not likely to get those in while he has some major dumbass policies too.

And, aside from any personal opinion on his policies, he simply doesn't have the support from the party, he's only really popular with white democrats. If Hillary tagged out and Biden stepped in, Biden would gain a lead rapidly because while Bernie Sanders has strong support in one area, Biden is more popular among black democrats, hispanic democrats, etc..

Same goes for Elizabeth Warren.

People win and lose not based on how popular they are with one segment of their party, but how wide a coalition they can get.




Yes, I do support Hillary (her economics aren't bad, she's forward enough on social issues, she knows how to work against strong opposition, and she also knows how to form coalitions. Also most of her 'scandals' are bunk), but at the same time, I think Rubio's the best Republican candidate but fully admit he's not in a good position to win his primary right now.

Likes and predictions are two separate things. You seem mainly focused on trying to sell me on the idea that Hillary's gonna lose and Trump is going to win, which, frankly, is besides the point. The point is what stuff looks like it'll help and hurt each candidate and their respective positions.

You may not think anyone trusts Clintons or Bushes, but Jeb Bush has a whole lot of Republican support, he would not have much trouble getting the nod. Indeed, most figure his odds are the highest- higher, I feel, than the candidates you or I think would be better for the nomination in his party.


Who we like, who has the best support in their primaries, and who has the best odds in the general are three different things. They may occasionally overlap but they are not the same things.

Sanders is committed to his belief and I respect that, Hilary is a loose flag in the wind with no moral compass nor does she care about anyone. Stop talking to me about foreign policy..like hers is any better!? Are you blind to her failures! Bernie is at least committed to fixing Amerca. Something you seem to have zero interest in.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's a huge oversimplification to boil it down to "socialism vs capitalism."

There are other worldviews and ideologies at issue, such as Trump's brand of economic nationalism.

I'm fine with his Brand of economic nationalism. It's worked for him. What has Hilary done?

The Great Wall of Trump is coming soon and it will provide thousands of jobs and save us trillions in dollars.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I'm fine with his Brand of economic nationalism. It's worked for him. What has Hilary done?

The Great Wall of Trump is coming soon and it will provide thousands of jobs and save us trillions in dollars.
You think illegal immigration costs us trillions of dollars?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You think illegal immigration costs us trillions of dollars?

What doesn't cost us trillions anymore?


And aint you German? And it isn't like Europe isn't having the same probs with refugees from Africa and the Arabian and Persian countries.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
What doesn't cost us trillions anymore?


Illegal immigrants, who both pay taxes and add to supply and workforce, causing economic activity.

When some areas of the US passed strict laws that drove them out, local businesses were hurt by the loss.




Personally, I care more about what actually helps the country than what someone things. Someone should be willing to compromise on an issue if they learn that that issue has negative side effects.

I mean, granted, he *also* has some ideas that'd really help the country, like raising minimum wage, but I'd rather have those ideas picked up by someone else who's not hung up on ideas that'll hurt the country.

Sometimes a candidate is better to push issues than to actually get the chair, and I think Bernie is one of those.

I do like passion and such, but judgement on not just a few issues, but a wide range, is more important, and he has some big problems, in issues that the President has massive discretion on.




She's kinda been built into a caricature in your head, hasn't she?

Also, you do know that people say the same thing about Trump like, all the time, right? And you still support him. You should maybe consider how effective your repeating such attacks are, if you don't believe similar ones yourself.

My objections to Trump are much more policy based, and, well, I don't think he's very good with economics (though that said, there was the fact that he said he isn't planning on cutting social security and medicare like most other Republican candidates, because he doesn't have the irrational fear of debt so common to the party, and I will give him points on that).



... yes? I mean, hers is better than the Republican's too, but compared to Sanders, the loss of trade would be extremely painful and cost lots of jobs and money.




No, she's far from perfect, she has definite mistakes and things I don't agree with. She's too hawkish for my tastes, to be sure.

At the same time, I do note that many people exaggerate her failures or practically make them out of whole cloth. I'll only hold her accountable for what she actually did, not what others want her to have done, and even so, I'll also take into consideration her successes and the likely effects of her other policies, just as I would anyone else.

That's how I judge things.



I think you're projecting. One of the main reasons I support Obama is he did a lot to help fix America's economy (at a time when the Republicans were actively against taking stimulus steps to do so), and one of the reasons I support Hillary is I believe she's going to continue doing so.


Hillary wants to help the country. So does literally everyone else in the race, both parties, no exception. If you think anyone in the race doesn't, I think you're letting personal dislike get in the way of analyzing things. Now, they do certainly have much different ideas on how to go about this, but 'doesn't care' doesn't come into it.

She's a broadly experienced candidate who's got a lot of experience, did well as a senator and secretary of state, has an inside view of the white house and what the job entails, has positive social views, good-enough economics, is not adverse to diplomacy, and I think can manage things quite well.



I do hope you aren't going to turn this thread just into "Why Time thinks everyone else should hate Hillary," personally I'm more interested in tracking the situation, who's ahead, and discussing numbers and trends rather than trying to convince people


In this thread, I intend to say why I think this or that candidate is doing well or not, but not focus on selling them for or against so much.

And really, it wouldn't matter how much I supported Sanders, it wouldn't make his odds shoot up- at least, that's what every analysis and graph I've seen said.

A Howard Dean campaign staffer compared the two, and the situation is likely quite similar. Someone who's popular to start out, but then as more voters show interest, fades out because their small motivated following doesn't represent a potion of the party beyond, and then need to *make* new following in the party beyond, which is hard.

Now, it's not impossible, but he needs-needs-needs to branch out, and he's in a tough spot.

Illegal workers means they don't pay tax, duh.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
With Trump we will most likely get the other 15 GOP hopefuls as cabnier members and Carson as the VP.

Solid

I could also see Romey as Sec State. He could fix everything Hilary has done.

Whoever said Hilary would be better with the economy is a joke. She charges schools $100k to speak at them which is a burden on the school and students. Trump does not take money from anyone.

Hilary good on the economy is like saying Hilary was good with emails. If she can't run her email server to code, she can't run the country.

Isn't everyone here tired of the Cliton Controversy and the excuse "OH MY, I had no idea."

I think he could also choose Carly Fiorina as VP. Would really double down on the business experience thing that people seem to like about him, and would also be a way for him to try and show that he doesn't hate or disrespect women while also potentially getting a few extra women voters.

Very good point.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Illegal workers means they don't pay tax, duh.

They do pay some taxes, and they don't receive the same benefits citizens get. In absolute terms immigration is a net positive for the US economically.

Paycheck withholdings basically screw Immigrants over. Ditto sales tax.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think he could also choose Carly Fiorina as VP. Would really double down on the business experience thing that people seem to like about him, and would also be a way for him to try and show that he doesn't hate or disrespect women while also potentially getting a few extra women voters.


That'd work.

Both of their actual business success could be attacked, but that's nothing new and their supporters already know about that aspect of Trump*, but it seems a fairly solid approach.


*Just like with Hillary, if there's a 'flaw' but it's one everyone knows and doesn't care about, it is not going to be the opposition's silver bullet.

Originally posted by Q99
Paycheck withholdings basically screw Immigrants over. Ditto sales tax.




That'd work.

Both of their actual business success could be attacked, but that's nothing new and their supporters already know about that aspect of Trump*, but it seems a fairly solid approach.


*Just like with Hillary, if there's a 'flaw' but it's one everyone knows and doesn't care about, it is not going to be the opposition's silver bullet.

So before you claimed they paid tax, then I stomped on that and you regressed, now its paycheck withholding screw over illegal immigrants.

So I forgot are we supposed to help law breakers and alienate law abiding citizens?

You didn't stomp on anything.

Yea I did

Deez Nuts is undoubtedly the best candidate on the table right now.

Trump is coming and so is the Great Wall of America (Trump).

Oh, interesting, Five Thirty Eight came out with an article / three person discussion about what it would take for Bernie to win.

To start with, a shock to the Clinton campaign (one bigger than the e-mail thing, they note), would be needed. Second, he definitely needs more support among African Americans- like I've been saying- and that this lack of support puts him at a major disadvantage in South Carolina.

Silver thinks the best chance is if Hillary bows out and Biden takes his place, while Micah argues that a three-way Hillary-Biden-Bernie is the path that gives Sanders the best shot- but Biden is unlikely to do that unless there's a crisis on Clinton's campaign.

Pretty much everyone agrees that Sanders needs to improve among the other major Democrat demographics to win.

For once we agree

Hilary is barely surviving now, soon as her first debate comes and she gets destroyed in Iowa, Biden will come in and clean up.

There is no Hilary presidency ever to be.

Fate has spoken.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So before you claimed they paid tax, then I stomped on that and you regressed, now its paycheck withholding screw over illegal immigrants.

What regressed? Employees standardly withhold part of paychecks for the purpose of paying taxes. It is how a big chunk of taxes are taken and it's done automatically, did you not know that?



Here's the thing, if all it takes to turn a lawbreaker into a law abiding citizen is a check box, and their actual behavior is entirely like that of a law abiding citizen in all other respects, it's a distinction without difference- and it doesn't alienate most law abiding citizens, 65% are in favor of a path to citizenship. The majority of citizens are on this side.



If a law is made making your presence in your state illegal, you'd be just as much a lawbreaker as they are now, but it doesn't mean you're actually doing anything bad, would it?

It's often a distinction without a difference. Making them legal citizens doesn't harm us, it doesn't harm them, and most of them have already proven they make darn good citizens. So yea, let them in, that's the American way.

That poll is bs. I sure as hell didn't participate, did you?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That poll is bs. I sure as hell didn't participate, did you?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Why Romney as Secretary of State? He has literally zero foreign policy experience.


As though that is a requirement...


The "has no foreign relations experience" and "has no executive experience" are both bullshit arguments. As though they are not surrounded by the world's best minds and literally consult with dozens or even hundreds of people on any major decision. In fact, I am of the opinion (backed by stories from former aides), that modern US presidents make no important executive or foreign relations decisions. More like they undergo a delphi method and the president is just the mouth piece of that methodology.

Let's review/recall 2008: everyone jumped all over Obama for having no executive or foreign relation experience. They jumped all over Palin for having limited foreign policy experience (and she used Russia as her justification for why she does).

So why disparage a man that is a successful global business man (As though his has no "foreign policy experience"? Makes no sense.

Basically, judge candidates and politicians on both their platforms and their track records, not their experience. As odd as it sounds, experience at the upper levels of government is almost completely meaningless.


Let's use Obama as a good example: he made good on many small promises and broke many of the extremely important ones. His foreign policy has been a mixed bag of success and failure but I'd give him the nod towards an overall positive..but not by much.


Compare Romney's foreign policies to Obama's 2 versions: his promises and his actual.


I bet you Obama's promises are somewhere between 2x and 3x better than Romney's platform, if we're being honest. But I'm not so sure Obama's actual performance is better than Romney's policies.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm not joking. You pretend like she has been committed of wrongdoing. When we really don't know anything yet. The 60 you bring up were flagged as potentially containing classified information (albeit at the lowest levels),

Oh please, what a load of ginormous apologetic bullshit.

I worked for the federal government and handled sensitive and classified information. My current job requires I have an even higher federal security clearance.

Almost a decade into handling sensitive and classified information, stuff that even comes remotely close to "sensitive" is supposed to be handled in a specific way.

What you're doing is similar to saying, "Hilary shouldn't be blamed for not being able to put on her own pants! It's so confusing and hard to do! Harumph!"

Handling sensitive and classified information is ridiculously basic to working in government.

1 incident? Okay, a minor mistake. 2? Maybe some behavioral changes need to be made. Perhaps some additional security awareness training (which is mandatory for all federal employees and government contractors, annually, who handle sensitive or classified information). 3 or more? Yeah, she should be fired and possibly even criminally investigated.

A gentleman that used to work in another department, when I worked at my previous job, leaked one thing and was criminally investigated. Granted, it turned out to be an accident but he didn't even get one chance. And he was fired. And he can't work in the federal government again.

So, please, enough with the apologetic bullshit regarding Hilary's dishonesty. Let's also not pretend that Hilary is the only person to be a slimey, shadey, lying, politician, who purposefully leaked and/or mishandled government information.



Seriously, from outsiders who have degrees, certifications, and years of experience in the government sector (that's not just me: any of my employees or peers in other departments agree with me), think this whole situation is frighteningly laughable. How is she getting away with this? Why even a private server to begin with (that's a huge flag, right there).

Originally posted by Bardock42
even if they did definitely contain classified information that does not mean Clinton did anything wrong yet.

That is incorrect. It does not matter what her intentions were (as you put it "doing anything wrong", simply mishandling the data is grounds for criminal prosecution and dismissal from holding any government position ever again. They call this "black listing" and it prevents you from getting a job in the federal government and perhaps state and local governments.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Do you misconstrue words on purpose?. Or do you always miss the point and context?

Trump (Capitalist)

Vs

Sanders (Socialist)

Wake up and smell the coffee. That's how going down, you trying to dismiss it as no one trusts a Clinton or a Bush.

Now I see why we never get along, you in the wrong crowd. If you supported Sanders I would respect you.

Supporting A Clinton still?

Actually, both of them are Capitalistic Socialists. American is a system of Capitalism and Socialism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh please, what a load of ginormous apologetic bullshit.

I worked for the federal government and handled sensitive and classified information. My current job requires I have an even higher federal security clearance.

Almost a decade into handling sensitive and classified information, stuff that even comes remotely close to "sensitive" is supposed to be handled in a specific way.

What you're doing is similar to saying, "Hilary shouldn't be blamed for not being able to put on her own pants! It's so confusing and hard to do! Harumph!"

Handling sensitive and classified information is ridiculously basic to working in government.

1 incident? Okay, a minor mistake. 2? Maybe some behavioral changes need to be made. Perhaps some additional security awareness training (which is mandatory for all federal employees and government contractors, annually, who handle sensitive or classified information). 3 or more? Yeah, she should be fired and possibly even criminally investigated.

A gentleman that used to work in another department, when I worked at my previous job, leaked one thing and was criminally investigated. Granted, it turned out to be an accident but he didn't even get one chance. And he was fired. And he can't work in the federal government again.

So, please, enough with the apologetic bullshit regarding Hilary's dishonesty. Let's also not pretend that Hilary is the only person to be a slimey, shadey, lying, politician, who purposefully leaked and/or mishandled government information.



Seriously, from outsiders who have degrees, certifications, and years of experience in the government sector (that's not just me: any of my employees or peers in other departments agree with me), think this whole situation is frighteningly laughable. How is she getting away with this? Why even a private server to begin with (that's a huge flag, right there).



That is incorrect. It does not matter what her intentions were (as you put it "doing anything wrong", simply mishandling the data is grounds for criminal prosecution and dismissal from holding any government position ever again. They call this "black listing" and it prevents you from getting a job in the federal government and perhaps state and local governments.

Well, I guess we'll see how it goes for her.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I guess we'll see how it goes for her.


There's nothing to see. If something was going to happen, it would have happened before any of us knew anything about it. She knows she's in the clear. Double standards for oligarchical figureheads.

Or maybe you're wrong.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, both of them are Capitalistic Socialists. American is a system of Capitalism and Socialism.

Very good point, which is why I think it's going to come to them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Or maybe you're wrong.

Uhh....

haha


No. Not even close.


She should not have had a personal server to conduct State relations. It should have been on an internal server that was secured to DoD Top Secret Spec.

This is extremely basic stuff, here.


Why was she even allowed a personal e-mail server to conduct State business? Can you explain that?

I mean, the reason is obvious...so she could do things that would be illegal for any other person. It's one of those..."everyone else has to follow the law but not special politician x" situations. Like I said, Hilary is not the only one like that.



I'd like to read a DoD document that justifies the handling of classified information on personal e-mail servers. If you have that evidence, let me know, and i'll concede she didn't break any rules or laws (don't bother...you won't find it. It's laughably against policy).

I guess if you're right she'll face consequences, so we'll see.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess if you're right she'll face consequences, so we'll see.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's nothing to see. If something was going to happen, it would have happened before any of us knew anything about it. She knows she's in the clear. Double standards for oligarchical figureheads.

Im not so sure Hilary will dodge the bullet on this DDM. Its pretty obvious Obama is green lighting this to take Hilary out and get Biden in.

Oh snap, a new challenger has entered the ring! Wesley Chu just announced his candidacy!

(Explanation: See, during the Worldcon SF awards, one of the award winners jokingly announced his candidacy...)

So whether or not you think she did something wrong, has this scandal more or less cost Hilary any chance of becoming president? I would think if the story went away this very second that there is still a long enough time until the actual presidential election, but obviously it's not going away anytime soon.

Originally posted by Surtur
So whether or not you think she did something wrong, has this scandal more or less cost Hilary any chance of becoming president? I would think if the story went away this very second that there is still a long enough time until the actual presidential election, but obviously it's not going away anytime soon.

I don't think so, yet. It may still.

Talking about other potential candidates, here's a really interesting interview with Larry Lessig (pretty famous free and open source software advocate) who has started a crowd-funding campaign to become what he calls a "Referendum President" (or single-issue president). In essence he argues that if he gets the vote campaigning with just one single issue, he would have such an overwhelming mandate, that it would have to be passed (the issue he chose is campaign finance reform). He would then step aside and have his vice-president take his place. He would attempt to run as a Democrat. It's definitely a fascinating concept, and a unique idea how to fight the influence of money in politics (another is the idea of going through an amendment convention of the states, like The Young Turks "Wolf PAC" and other organisations plan, he also briefly talks about that). At any rate, it's very interesting (even if Jason Calacanis can be insufferable).

This Week in Startups - 571: Larry Lessig launches exploratory campaign to run as the “Referendum President,” fix the corrupt campaign system & restore representative democracy

Rick Perry's campaign is undead. That is to say, the campaign itself is out of money, it is reliant entirely on superPAC money at this point.

And Trump poaches a key campaign member off of him

So with that, I think we can likely call Perry out, at Trump's hand. He's not technically lowest in the polls, but combined with no money it's not like there's much chance of a rebound.

---

Bardock- it's an interesting concept, but I don't see it working, it's reliant on a single issue so overwhelming it'll overcome the appeal of a wider slate. Almost everyone has multiple things they care about, and if some rival agrees with him on his one issue, he's pretty badly outflanked.

Originally posted by Surtur
So whether or not you think she did something wrong, has this scandal more or less cost Hilary any chance of becoming president? I would think if the story went away this very second that there is still a long enough time until the actual presidential election, but obviously it's not going away anytime soon.

Almost certainly not. One thing I want to note, the betting odds posted earlier? The betting places literally didn't adjust them in response to the scandal.

Basically they'd already figured in that she'd have a scandal that'd hit her during the campaign, and that she'd likely weather it.


Also her numbers are still through the roof in polling against Sanders, and still have a lead against the Republican rivals even after the scandal struck hard.


This is Hillary Clinton, "Attached to a scandal that the Republicans think will kill her but gets overplayed to the point of losing effectiveness as an attack," is, like, half her career.

This isn't a major criminal matter, there's not even much appearance of intent to break the rules rather than a mistake in procedure.


The only way this'll sink her is if it inspires a major Democrat rival like Biden to step in, no guarantee of a loss even if that happens, and that still seems unlikely.

Oh, Gallup did polling of candidates popularity among hispanics:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6-swa7y0k02i1yrwiq0iaa.png

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ls7fn-hemkuxlztcuj-5lg.png

Jeb even beats Rubio, impressive!


And for the distinguished opposition:

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/lxtqv1kf6u-v_vep3aq6sq.png

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/uybmuzoekekyefmmbvwd3q.png


Also, in a truly bizarre move, when Jeb wanted to defend his 'anchor baby' comment to the hispanic community... He said he was talking about Asians, not Hispanics.

Which... just annoyed a different group. So, Jeb's the focus of this post I guess. Relative popularity on one, but only by pointing xenophobia at another.

Here's an interesting article- Kasich may be a big threat to Bush

While Trump's obviously the big name foe, Kasich is positioning himself to swoop in and take the moderate-Republican voters from Jeb, and trying to re-take those could threaten Bush's cred with the farther right side of the part.

Or to put it in other words, Bush may be in a tough spot because, as the establishment candidate at the middle, there's people poised to steal support from almost any side.

yea cuz if there's anything the republican candidate needs to secure its the Hispanic vote...

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea cuz if there's anything the republican candidate needs to secure its the Hispanic vote...


Yes? I mean, they're big enough to swing stuff towards or away from someone, you don't need all of 'em but it definitely helps to have a good proportion, and they are a swing demographic who unlike some are actually in play.

Hispanic Americans are a notable demographic in Florida and Colorado, two of the major swing states. They also put Obama over the top in North Carolina and Indiana in '08.

GWB got a reasonable chunk of their support, and won, and if he'd been less popular with them- like, even a little less popular- he'd have lost Florida and never been elected.


Can one win without them? Sure (and some analysts noted Romney would've lost even if he had their support), but it's a notable help.



Here's an analytical breakdown from back in '08, based on those results and looking at the increased difficulty of winning without the hispanic vote.

i mean that's a fair point but i dunno.. i'm sort of skeptical of the left's assertion that the republicans need to start appealing to latinos more by changing their immigration policies to come closer to reflecting the democrat's.. because first of all a lot of the populist support for right wing guys like cruz and trump comes directly from the fact that they are willing to go hard on immigration. thats a sentiment that is very popular among conservative americans.

on top of that... there is the narrative that the democrats changed immigration laws in the 60's to rapidly change the demographics of the country and bring in more poor nonwhite voters who will invariably vote democrat. so the republican party is at a point where if they are going to act to reverse that demographic trend, they're better off doing it now and they better damn well do it in an efficient manner, because the political will for that sort of thing is going to continue to dwindle the longer we maintain the current rate of immigration from latin america.

you might say they can just as easily win these demographics... but i'm not sure that's true, given their current political base and the the need to continue to appeal to their nationalist sentiments.

i understand its a touchy issue and all that... not trying to sound xenophobic, in fact i have inlaws that could be affected by this sort of thing. but that's just the pragmatic reality so far as i see it,

I heard that an influential republican talkshow host openly advocated for the slavery of immigrants a few days ago. Get them to build a wall to keep Mexicans out.

So that's funny.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i mean that's a fair point but i dunno.. i'm sort of skeptical of the left's assertion that the republicans need to start appealing to latinos more by changing their immigration policies to come closer to reflecting the democrat's.. because first of all a lot of the populist support for right wing guys like cruz and trump comes directly from the fact that they are willing to go hard on immigration. thats a sentiment that is very popular among conservative americans.

It's popular among conservative Americans, but less so the general electorate, and it's even fairly mixed among Republicans. That is to say, I think a Republican candidate going for path to citizenship, while unpopular with some parts of the party, would go over well with enough others to counteract it.


Furthermore, due to the fact that a lot of hispanics are religious, there's been a strong argument that they'd be a natural growth demographic with the GOP, to counter the Democrat's gains in black voters and lgbt voters. As they're a young demographic, they'd also help balance the youth vote.





Yeeea, I don't really buy into that, immigration was fueled by other factors, and wouldn't an act to steal the vote out from under them to the Democratic side undermine that anyway?

Even if one believes that, wouldn't it be better to turn the tide?

I mean, as a Dem, I'm fine with them being on the Democrat side, but as someone with an interest in the tactics of politics it seems like a wasted opportunity.

Basically, the Republican party buying into that narrative makes the results true whatever the original intent. If they decide not to try for the hispanics or others, they make themselves the white party by their own choice.




I'll note rate of immigration from Mexico has been declining.

It should be mentioned that the US has always had immigration, and where that comes from is something that changes occasionally. 20-30 years from now, it may be mostly from Africa or the Mid-East or so on.

Latin America isn't doing too badly, so the rates decline with time.




It'd be hard now, but two presidents ago we had a Republican getting 40% support. 40% support does not say hopeless to me!

This is something that'd take effort over a few elections I think, first to get back to that point and then to push on from there, but as a long term plan is a potential avenue of attack.






From a political/election standpoint, I view it as a short term vs long term thing.

Short term it can be used to rally certain parts of the populace to turn out really hard and support, but long term it loses the support of a larger demographic that really is within reach.


(From a personal standpoint, I disagree with the anti-immigrant stance, but that's a different matter than how effective it is)

One thing I find interesting about the current polls, is Carson and Bush bounce back and forth between who's in second pretty much every poll- the results seemingly dependent on which firm does it.

Still, Bush retains a pretty good position at the head of the non-Trump pack.


And Five Thirty Eight does a discussion on Biden, and how a lot of the reasons people are saying he may run are bolloks, though a Biden run isn't out of the question and basically relies on his call based on insider party information we lack. If the insider party is really worried about the e-mail thing, then he may step in, but if they're not, he's got little reason to and he's not the type to step in just on personal ambition. And right now, we just don't know the insider perspective.

But a Biden run, despite what some people are foolishly speculating, certainly wouldn't help Hillary.

Another boring post. from Q99.

Do you just care about the one candidate per side and not everything else?

If so, feel free to just ignore 'em, not everyone will feel the same and I can discuss the wider situation with them Red g Jacks is pretty fun to talk with.


Personally I feel this primary is much more entertaining than just the top candidates, as entertaining as the top candidates are.

We all know its going to be Biden/Castro vs Trump/Carson.

An article on Jeb Bush's problem with speeches, and how he keeps saying stuff and taking it back. Comparing it to his brother, who made speech flubs that were funny but didn't involve him having to do the backpeddle chorus of Jeb- and often Jeb's don't really seem to be speech flubs so much as saying things then retracting them because he realizes they're tactical errors.



Also, a poll of Iowa caucus goers and how much they are or aren't satisfied with various things, broken down by party:

http://i.imgur.com/1Ur1O8O.jpg

Interesting how while the dems are ok with the dems in congress, the Republicans are highly unsatisfied with their own congressional people.

And unsurprisingly, the Dems like Hillary more than the Republicans like Trump, though the Republicans are still fairly strongly in favor of Trump.

From a CNN article that also has more

Oh, and this is bizarre.

You know how some talk a wall between the US and Mexico?

Scott Walker wants one between us and Canada

I... use to think he was a bit more reasonable than that.

Also I wonder what Canadian-born Cruz thinks of that.

I already thought Canada was North USA so I'm not sure what the point of this is.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I already thought Canada was North USA so I'm not sure what the point of this is.

I know, right? Is he afraid of their politeness or something?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Another boring post. from Q99.


I love Q99's informative posts. Better and more accurate news than most places, really. Q99 does a good job of distilling the bulslhit out there into one succinct post. F***, if I'm being honest, I get my updates on the primary from Q99 and others on KMC: no where else. haha


I have no idea where I was going with this.


Oh, I remember: I know you're just busting balls but I love the boring updates! cry

Originally posted by Q99
An article on Jeb Bush's problem with speeches, and how he keeps saying stuff and taking it back. Comparing it to his brother, who made speech flubs that were funny but didn't involve him having to do the backpeddle chorus of Jeb- and often Jeb's don't really seem to be speech flubs so much as saying things then retracting them because he realizes they're tactical errors.



Also, a poll of Iowa caucus goers and how much they are or aren't satisfied with various things, broken down by party:

http://i.imgur.com/1Ur1O8O.jpg

Interesting how while the dems are ok with the dems in congress, the Republicans are highly unsatisfied with their own congressional people.

And unsurprisingly, the Dems like Hillary more than the Republicans like Trump, though the Republicans are still fairly strongly in favor of Trump.

From a CNN article that also has more

Jeb is an idiot, we all know this, report on something new their you.

Well hey we do have some good news from the White House. Obama changed the name of a mountain in Alaska back to its original name.

I know back during the last election I would toss and turn at night trying to decide which candidate would be best suited for returning our mountains to their native names.

Interesting that Democrats and Republicans are equally dissatisfied with Politicians in general, the money involved in politics, and Wall Street according to Q99's chart.

They are also comparable in their dislike of the Republicans currently in Congress.

(as far as an Iowa poll goes anyway)

And another FiveThirtyEight article: The Republic Establishment is waiting in the wings

They note how this time last race, Romney didn't have too many endorsements, but even so, he had 67% of the ones that were given out.

Jeb Bush, the endorsement leader this time around, is moderately behind Romney in absolute terms, but only has 27% of the ones that have been given out.

And, overall, a mere 4% of possible Republican endorsements have been given by representatives, senators, and the like. Which is not a lot, considering the Democrat endorsers have more than half come out.

So in other words, the Republican establishment has neither come out, and those who have aren't particularly united either. Much less so even than last time. This really is a highly unusually up-in-the-air primary.

Jeb Bush has a tax plan, and it's weird



So, kinda an amalgam plan that's fairly disunified economically in order to try and appeal to a mix.


It'd cut taxes to the rich, businesses (very significantly), and working poor, which leaves one of three possibilities as to how it balances the numbers: One, it'd raise taxes on the middle class, or two, it'd be significantly below the US budget and send the debt soaring, or three, he'd also be cutting a ton of major government services to try and balance it.

On the plus side, there's also some simplifications of things and alterations that, while not game changing, are likely positive, but from the sound of it it reminds me a lot of the Ryan plan from last time.

Here's an article contrasting Trump and Sanders' races

Noting stuff like,
While they're both considered 'outsider' candidates, Sanders is still well liked within the democrats while a lot of Republicans are up in arms about Donald.

How Sander's web page is all about his policy on numerous issue while Trump's really only touches one as befitting his more personality-driven campaign.

More unexpectedly, Bernie Sander's campaign organization is actually larger than Trump's at this point.

Bernie Sanders is much more demographically focused- he has a constituency, while Donald Trump is drawing his support from a variety of sources.

Trump is a much larger threat to his party's establishment, and it notes if Bernie pulled ahead, the Democratic establishment would fall in line.

And of course, just how different their situation is, winning frontrunner in a many way race vs second-place challenger against an overwhelming favorite.

Originally posted by Q99
Here's an article contrasting Trump and Sanders' races

Noting stuff like,
While they're both considered 'outsider' candidates, Sanders is still well liked within the democrats while a lot of Republicans are up in arms about Donald.

How Sander's web page is all about his policy on numerous issue while Trump's really only touches one as befitting his more personality-driven campaign.

More unexpectedly, Bernie Sander's campaign organization is actually larger than Trump's at this point.

Bernie Sanders is much more demographically focused- he has a constituency, while Donald Trump is drawing his support from a variety of sources.

Trump is a much larger threat to his party's establishment, and it notes if Bernie pulled ahead, the Democratic establishment would fall in line.

And of course, just how different their situation is, winning frontrunner in a many way race vs second-place challenger against an overwhelming favorite.

Because the democratic party does not break ranks, but lets be real, it will be Biden.

And the first one falls!

Rick Perry drops out, which is not a shock considering even though he's not the lowest in the rankings (though just third-to-last), he's apparently been out of money for some time, and doesn't really have his own niche. What does he do that someone else doesn't do better?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Because the democratic party does not break ranks,


Except when they do, like last time they had to decide Or when Bill did something similar....

Traditionally, ironically, the Democrats have tossed around multiple candidates before deciding while the Republicans have fallen in line, while in the last two it's been the reverse (once because of having a presidential incumbent, but having such a favorite right off the bat is reasonably uncommon, even VPs and the like normally have some major competition, like Edwards was to Kerry).




Yea, that wouldn't be shocking, if he ran, though I'd still put odds on Hil. Him and Hillary are definitely the high-odds contenders.

Go read the Blood Fued and then come and tell me Obama likes Hilary.

They're able to get along professionally well enough, considering he made her secretary of state and all.

==

No thoughts on Perry?

Or is it just a, "Shrug, who cares?" from pretty much everyone?

Its sad what happened to Perry, but what can we do.

Hypothetically, we could've supported him back when he was in, especially you Republicans.

He seems like an awful candidate and an awful person. He's more Bush than "Jeb!". I'm glad he's out. I hope it was costly.

I wonder which candidate will pick up his supporters.

Huckabee? Santorum? Bush?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wonder which candidate will pick up his supporters.

Huckabee? Santorum? Bush?

He has supporters?


Once a lot of candidates start dropping out there'll be an effect, but his polls average at 0.8 points.

Perry's establishment so... I figure they'll mostly go to Bush, but likely spread around some since there's so many other establishment candidates.



Five Thirty Eight has an article about him. In short: He entered this race about where he left the last one, and only lost ground since.

Who do y'all think will be the next to drop?

I'd say Santorum, Graham, or Jindal are the most likely.

As for the first "major" candidate to drop, my money's on Scott Walker. He's basically become irrelevant since Trump started firing up.

Yup

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Who do y'all think will be the next to drop?

I'd say Santorum, Graham, or Jindal are the most likely.

As for the first "major" candidate to drop, my money's on Scott Walker. He's basically become irrelevant since Trump started firing up.

Walker doesn't directly compete with Trump niche-wise compared to some, he's more head-to-head with Jeb- if he can do better in a second debate than he did the first, I think he can stay in for some time.

There was a time he was topping Jeb after all, it's just his non-presence the first time out hurt him.


That said, if he follows up his weak performance with another weak performance, yea, he may be the first candidate who's been a frontrunner to leave.

Oh, Just bumped into an article basically agreeing with you.

Or more specifically on how candidates with an early spike that fades like Walker rarely recover- it's basically a stage of trying out, and even if the ones who moved on decide they don't like their new candidate, they're more likely to move in to a third than to move back.


"Candidates like Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, others who have had a seasonal high, especially in the summer season, then find it a very difficult journey to get back to the top," said Bob Vander Plaats, an influential Iowa conservative, in an interview Friday. "People look at them initially, they went with them, then they found a better option and they leave with that better option. Trump, will they go back to Walker, or will they go to, say, a Ted Cruz? Historically it's fair to say they're going to look for somebody else."

Walker is finished

In six months, I could see the field narrowing to just six or seven candidates. My money's on Trump, Bush, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, and Christie.

Christie has a fat chance.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In six months, I could see the field narrowing to just six or seven candidates. My money's on Trump, Bush, Carson, Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, and Christie.

Once the primaries actually start they'll drop out like flies (if flies dropped out). I assume by Mid-March it's 2 maybe 3 people.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Walker is finished


Well, *probably*, but not certainly. A race this big can be unpredictable, we don't know what developments could occur. If Jeb self destructs, let's say, then that's a lot of establishment-minded people who could head in Walker's direction.





Interestingly, he has his share of endorsements, so he's got more support on the political side (more than almost all the competitors, even much higher polling ones) than he does on the public side.

After the bridge scandal though, he does not strike me as a strong candidate. Heck, he's below Kasich.



So, I basically agree with you on both, but do note we're just talking 'probably' here.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Christie has a fat chance.
I think actual prospects aren't always as important as personal drive and conviction when it comes to someone staying in the race. Christie probably still thinks he can win, though, as you put it, that's probably not supported by reality. If Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Scott Walker all pulled out tomorrow Chris Christie would become the establishment candidate and it would be a two or three man race between him, Trump, and whoever the religious conservatives end up rallying behind, but that's not going to happen.

Makes you wonder though where he'd be if Bridgegate had never happened.

Christie at least has *some* support, and his personality really doesn't lend to quitting easily, so it'll likely be money-based for him.

---
Some big images of the rankings per state:
http://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/09/12/767b450d-2298-4094-a339-6f4013e39304/83e75ce7bc4c735e7454ad8fdda6e209/iowa-choice-for-nomination2.jpghttp://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/09/12/1ef8c80b-3f64-4b7f-8246-a3fdab21f2ba/aad8a1b350caf2a4bb6fb65d94c09a74/new-hampshire-choice-for-nomination.jpghttp://cbsnews1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/2015/09/12/f1141bc6-b24c-4fa7-a4e9-6a0e32c61b74/2db6ee0efba9e134304fd72e74cf390b/south-carolina-choice-for-nomination.jpg

It's interesting that all the 'establishment' candidates (Bush, Rubio, Walker, Kasich, Christie) *combined* are polling worse than just-Romney was last time.

The party powerbrokers are not showing a lot of control of this race so far.

The Republican electorate seems to just be disillusioned with the party and its insiders. That's basically the beginning of the end of any serious political party. It's like the parties have switched places. It used to be the Democratic Party where everyone was jockeying viciously for place while in the GOP there was some understanding that while candidates could squabble, there would be a chosen candidate and everyone else would fall in line. That may not happen this time.

I'll admit now, I had no idea Trump's momentum would last this long, and I'm probably eating my words from a few months ago. At this point I'm just fascinated to see what happens next. I still can't imagine President Trump (not with the Latino vote out of his reach), but Candidate Trump has become a realistic possibility.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The Republican electorate seems to just be disillusioned with the party and its insiders. That's basically the beginning of the end of any serious political party. It's like the parties have switched places. It used to be the Democratic Party where everyone was jockeying viciously for place while in the GOP there was some understanding that while candidates could squabble, there would be a chosen candidate and everyone else would fall in line. That may not happen this time.

I'll admit now, I had no idea Trump's momentum would last this long, and I'm probably eating my words from a few months ago. At this point I'm just fascinated to see what happens next. I still can't imagine President Trump (not with the Latino vote out of his reach), but Candidate Trump has become a realistic possibility.


Right. He still has some major hurdles, but it definitely has surpassed my expectations as well.


To me, I was still remembering when Obama so casually slapped down his last attempt, and I thought the other Republican candidates wouldn't have much more trouble doing so.


But toss in the two biggest competitors at the debate underperforming, and Trump has his foot more than in the door.

Oh, here is a batch of interesting charts.

A lot of the current candidates were governors during the financial crash and recovery and the times before it.

FiveThirtyEight did a calculation of what the neutral/'expected' performance would be for their state, and if the individual candidates underperformed or overperformed:

https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/casselman-feature-govs.png?w=863&h=1284


Jeb did a bit better than average in the boom time, but recovery wise did nothing out of line with the expected. Walker's pretty much exactly on the expectations line. Huckabee's performance sucked.

Article

You do know that Trump and Hilary are tied now right? In a head to head poll for the general..

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You do know that Trump and Hilary are tied now right? In a head to head poll for the general..

Sure. Well, the CNN poll. ABC puts Hillary at +3, and the Survey USA one is Trump +5 and only slightly older.


Plus like a lot say, it's a marathon, not a spring.


Neither Trump nor Hillary are anywhere near panic positions, to state the obvious. If you're in first place in either party, you're in good shape.

Heck, I'm not even sure if Jeb is panicking yet, and he's a distant third in the Republicans.... what matters is once state primaries start.

For minor stuff-

Zoltan Istvan of the 'Transhumanist' party is joining the race

As is John McAfee- yes, of the antivirus software McAfee- of the 'cyber' party is joining the race
Video announcement

Saw a poll that indicated that up to 60% of Republican voters have yet to make a decision on which candidate to back. If this is accurate, then the support for Trump and Carson early on may only indicate their popularity among the more politically proactive rather than indicating solid strength and staying power when the primaries start and shit gets real.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Saw a poll that indicated that up to 60% of Republican voters have yet to make a decision on which candidate to back. If this is accurate, then the support for Trump and Carson early on may only indicate their popularity among the more politically proactive rather than indicating solid strength and staying power when the primaries start and shit gets real.


Right, this is the preseason, not the final four, so to speak.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Saw a poll that indicated that up to 60% of Republican voters have yet to make a decision on which candidate to back. If this is accurate, then the support for Trump and Carson early on may only indicate their popularity among the more politically proactive rather than indicating solid strength and staying power when the primaries start and shit gets real.

This is assuming people want to see another bush in office, because its either going to be trump or bush, and people are tired of politicians.

I still think Trump is going to **** up too badly at some point and not get the nomination.

Like Hilary has ****ed up.

Obama said he would support her, and he has her under investigation by the FBI.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/01/us-usa-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0PB3HK20150701

Hillary Clinton struggled to fit into the government of President Barack Obama after being appointed Secretary of State in 2009, according to emails released by the State Department on Tuesday.

They showed Clinton turning up for meetings that had been canceled and worrying about how much time she had with her new boss, revealing growing pains in the relationship between her and former election rival Obama in the early months of her time as America's top diplomat.

In an email to two aides on June 8, 2009, Clinton was unsure if the White House had held a Cabinet meeting and whether she should attend.

"I heard on the radio that there is a Cabinet mtg this am. Is there? Can I go? If not, who are we sending?" Clinton wrote.

A State Department official wrote back that the government was holding a meeting, but not a full cabinet meeting that she needed to be at.

As Clinton sought to navigate her relationship with the Obama White House, she corresponded with several former aides and advisers to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

They included Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House speech writer, Sandy Berger, the former National Security Adviser and Mark Penn, who served as a political adviser to both Bill Clinton and to Hillary Clinton's 2008 White House bid.

As the Obama administration was conducting a review of its policy in Afghanistan, for example, Penn emailed her and advised her not to ignore the threat posed by the Taliban.

While they were fierce competitors on the campaign trail Clinton and Obama eventually struck up a cordial working relationship in the four years she spent as secretary of state.

As she runs for the White House again at the November, 2016 election, Clinton's relationship with her fellow Democrat will come under further scrutiny.

While she has aligned herself with the Obama administration on issues that are popular with the base of Democratic supporters such as immigration reform, she has also tried to make her own mark by distancing herself from Obama on trade.

Back in 2009, there were a few misunderstandings, according to an email Clinton sent about what she thought was a meeting at the White House.

"I arrived for the 10:15 mtg and was told there was no mtg," she wrote to aides. "This is the second time this has happened. What's up???" she asked.

The emails released on Tuesday are among some 30,000 work emails relating to Clinton that a judge has ordered to be released in batches after a controversy broke out earlier this year when she acknowledged using a personal email account rather than a government one for State Department business.

As she began her tenure, Clinton worried about perceptions that she was not meeting enough with the president, given that former President Richard Nixon used to see his secretary of state Henry Kissinger daily.

"In thinking about the Kissinger interview, the only issue I think that might be raised is that I see POTUS at least once a week while K saw Nixon everyday," she said in an email to a spokesman, using Washington shorthand for President of the United States.

"Do you see this as a problem?” she asked spokesman Philippe Reines.

OBAMA COMPARISONS

Informal adviser Blumenthal showed concern in an email that the former first lady would be compared unfavorably to Obama as a public speaker.

"This speech can't afford to be lackluster. It will then be held up in invidious comparison to Obama's glittering best efforts. Your speech must have, amid the policies, a distinctive and authoritative voice,” Blumenthal wrote to Clinton about an address she was going to give at a foreign policy think tank.

A controversial figure, Blumenthal has had ties to the Clinton family since Bill Clinton's White House years.

He gave Hillary Clinton detailed advice on issues ranging from British politics to Afghanistan and Iran even though he was not employed by the U.S. government.

Blumenthal seemed to act as a middle-man between Clinton and former British prime minister Gordon Brown on the Northern Ireland peace process, according to an email he sent in 2009.

Blumenthal was barred from a job at the State Department by aides to Obama because of lingering distrust over his role advising Clinton's run against Obama, according to The New York Times.

The adviser emailed Clinton on June 23 around 10 p.m. with the subject line, "Hillary: if you're up, give me a call. Sid." In the preceding days, he had sent her detailed memos on Iran's 2009 election crisis.

James Cole, a lawyer for Blumenthal, did not reply to an email requesting comment.

Blumenthal last month said he wrote to Clinton only as a friend and a private citizen.

Well, luckily your Eurotrash opinion won't make a difference. God save Trump, is what I say, he'll return the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave back to former glory, after that Muslim you libs call a President nearly destroyed it!

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Like Hilary has ****ed up.

Obama said he would support her, and he has her under investigation by the FBI.


No, I think he'll **** up way worse than Clinton has ****ed up, at least support-wise.

At any rate, Clinton and Trump can both have problems that will make them unelectable, that's not mutually exclusive.

People who think Hilary has a chance here on living on a prayer, Obama is taking her out in a slow cold calculated public lynching. He will never allow Bill back in that office, much less Hilary.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
People who think Hilary has a chance here on living on a prayer, Obama is taking her out in a slow cold calculated public lynching. He will never allow Bill back in that office, much less Hilary.


This seems an odd view to me. One, he had her as secretary of state, they could work together professionally. Two, Bill Clinton gave some *great* pro-Obama speeches and helped him a lot in 2012. Three, why he'd prefer any of the Republicans, I don't know.

Three, the Republican party players really don't like Trump, he has an obstacle of that sort too, yet we don't think he's out of action.


While Barack does like Biden better, that doesn't mean he's dead set against the Clintons.

Here you go q99

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Like Hilary has ****ed up.

Obama said he would support her, and he has her under investigation by the FBI.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/01/us-usa-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0PB3HK20150701

Hillary Clinton struggled to fit into the government of President Barack Obama after being appointed Secretary of State in 2009, according to emails released by the State Department on Tuesday.

They showed Clinton turning up for meetings that had been canceled and worrying about how much time she had with her new boss, revealing growing pains in the relationship between her and former election rival Obama in the early months of her time as America's top diplomat.

In an email to two aides on June 8, 2009, Clinton was unsure if the White House had held a Cabinet meeting and whether she should attend.

"I heard on the radio that there is a Cabinet mtg this am. Is there? Can I go? If not, who are we sending?" Clinton wrote.

A State Department official wrote back that the government was holding a meeting, but not a full cabinet meeting that she needed to be at.

As Clinton sought to navigate her relationship with the Obama White House, she corresponded with several former aides and advisers to her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

They included Sidney Blumenthal, a former White House speech writer, Sandy Berger, the former National Security Adviser and Mark Penn, who served as a political adviser to both Bill Clinton and to Hillary Clinton's 2008 White House bid.

As the Obama administration was conducting a review of its policy in Afghanistan, for example, Penn emailed her and advised her not to ignore the threat posed by the Taliban.

While they were fierce competitors on the campaign trail Clinton and Obama eventually struck up a cordial working relationship in the four years she spent as secretary of state.

As she runs for the White House again at the November, 2016 election, Clinton's relationship with her fellow Democrat will come under further scrutiny.

While she has aligned herself with the Obama administration on issues that are popular with the base of Democratic supporters such as immigration reform, she has also tried to make her own mark by distancing herself from Obama on trade.

Back in 2009, there were a few misunderstandings, according to an email Clinton sent about what she thought was a meeting at the White House.

"I arrived for the 10:15 mtg and was told there was no mtg," she wrote to aides. "This is the second time this has happened. What's up???" she asked.

The emails released on Tuesday are among some 30,000 work emails relating to Clinton that a judge has ordered to be released in batches after a controversy broke out earlier this year when she acknowledged using a personal email account rather than a government one for State Department business.

As she began her tenure, Clinton worried about perceptions that she was not meeting enough with the president, given that former President Richard Nixon used to see his secretary of state Henry Kissinger daily.

"In thinking about the Kissinger interview, the only issue I think that might be raised is that I see POTUS at least once a week while K saw Nixon everyday," she said in an email to a spokesman, using Washington shorthand for President of the United States.

"Do you see this as a problem?” she asked spokesman Philippe Reines.

OBAMA COMPARISONS

Informal adviser Blumenthal showed concern in an email that the former first lady would be compared unfavorably to Obama as a public speaker.

"This speech can't afford to be lackluster. It will then be held up in invidious comparison to Obama's glittering best efforts. Your speech must have, amid the policies, a distinctive and authoritative voice,” Blumenthal wrote to Clinton about an address she was going to give at a foreign policy think tank.

A controversial figure, Blumenthal has had ties to the Clinton family since Bill Clinton's White House years.

He gave Hillary Clinton detailed advice on issues ranging from British politics to Afghanistan and Iran even though he was not employed by the U.S. government.

Blumenthal seemed to act as a middle-man between Clinton and former British prime minister Gordon Brown on the Northern Ireland peace process, according to an email he sent in 2009.

Blumenthal was barred from a job at the State Department by aides to Obama because of lingering distrust over his role advising Clinton's run against Obama, according to The New York Times.

The adviser emailed Clinton on June 23 around 10 p.m. with the subject line, "Hillary: if you're up, give me a call. Sid." In the preceding days, he had sent her detailed memos on Iran's 2009 election crisis.

James Cole, a lawyer for Blumenthal, did not reply to an email requesting comment.

Blumenthal last month said he wrote to Clinton only as a friend and a private citizen.

You obviously haven't read the book detailing how much dislike exists between the Clintons and the Obamas.