Establishment vs Insurgents
Mitt Romney has joined forces with Ted Cruz, as well as Cruz's arch enemy in the senate Lindsey Graham against Trump
Obama has now urged the doners in NYC to coalesce around Hilary.
Sanders has vowed to fight all the way to the convention. The GOP is looking for a brokered Convention.
So it's Trump and Sanders vs the Establishment.
Who wins?
Sander's doesn't have the pull to shoot out on his own, I also don't think he'd do this if he doesn't get the nom as it would hurt Clinton/the party in the election.
Trump I could see breaking off and running as an independent (or split off Republican) should the GOP snub him, he has the following. Though he'd likely just be handing the presidency to Clinton if he did this.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
If Trump and Sanders teamed up and ran an independent ticket for the general, they would ROFLSTOMP any ticket either establishment could put together.
Not necessarily, while Trump would siphon more votes from the Right than Sanders would Siphon from the Left, it'd still likely be a close election. Staunch Blue and Red States would likely stay as is. The Purple, light reds and light blues would be a tear up in that three-way.
Who knows though, maybe it would be, this hasn't happened in a long time, at least not with such polarizing figures and coming together from opposing sides.
Trump is getting 40% of the vote on the republican side.
Sanders is averaging 40% for the democrats.
They could beat a Hilary/Castro ticket.
Between Trump and Sanders, they could find common sense regulations, make Trade Deals pro America, increase jobs by producing them here, and save Social Security and take care of veterans.
Even if those figures are dead-right accurate, people from both Trump's and Sander's sides would drop off because of the other. You'd have Trump voters that would rage-quit because he's running with a "socialist" and you'd have Sander's supporters that would rage-quit because he's running with a "demagogue" etc.
The Republican insurgents have a pretty good shot, because the GOP's been encouraging demagoguery for some time... and perhaps more importantly, pretty much lying to their base. "We can totally do this with what we have!" *Gets elected, spends no effort on that*. "We totally must stop this or everything will explode!" *Doesn't stop that because they, obviously, didn't have the votes for it. Things don't explode. Makes the same promise/claim next time*. It's no surprise they aren't trusted.
The Democrats, less-so. Obama did what he was elected for, less than desired, but he without a doubt tried. The Democratic party does not feel betrayed. Heck, Bernie isn't so much getting support on being anti-establishment, so much as being pro-things like free college and heavier socialist policies that'd help workers.
They could beat a Hilary/Castro ticket.Between Trump and Sanders, they could find common sense regulations, make Trade Deals pro America, increase jobs by producing them here, and save Social Security and take care of veterans.
I do believe so many Sanders people would quit-out if he joined with Trump. I mean, over 60% of Sanders voters say they'd be satisfied with Hillary, 77% say they would vote for her. Join with someone who wants to build a wall and start a trade war with Mexico- remember Bernie is *not* anti-immigrant- and supports a conservative tax plan very much at odds with Bernie's high taxes for the wealthy? Unlikely, to say the least.
Also: Trade Protectionism is not 'pro-America.' A lot less trade means a lot less money. That's one of the big causes of the great depression, when the economy took a hit everyone was like, "We'll keep our jobs at home!", cut off trade, and poof, a lot of jobs just vanished.
This is what I have to say:
The Republicans who are hardcore Trump supporters are acting like 3rd graders. The don't care what his positions really are. They don't care that he will lose to Hillary in November. They just don't see the larger picture that if Trump is nominated it would destroy the party and allow the Democrats and easy win.
Okay, Trump and other pundits say he is not responsible for those who "protest" at his rallies. I guess then Lenin & Stalin were not responsible for the establishment of the Soviet Union. Maybe Hitler wasn't responsible for Nazi Germany too. What do all three men have in common? They preyed upon the fears and wearies of the public.
Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany losing the war (WWI) and it's poor economy.
Lenin & Stalin blamed Russian royalty for the economic woes of the country.
Trump: Blames Obama, China, Mexico, Muslims & probably everyone else who doesn't agree with him.
Trump is just a vulture who preys upon peoples fear. #Never Trump
Originally posted by Darth Truculent
[B]
Okay, Trump and other pundits say he is not responsible for those who "protest" at his rallies.
I'm reminded when the guy was suckerpunched at a rally, Trump literally blamed him and made up that the guy had been 'swinging' (rather than hit from behind).
He's also said of a protester, “I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that . . . ? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.”
And another: “I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya.”
Regularly talking about how he wants to see protesters beat up sends a message.
Uber-conservative paper National Review on it
And of course, "There will be riots," if he doesn't get the nomination. Said on multiple occasions. "I think you'd have riots," Trump told CNN on Wednesday. "I think you'd have riots. I'm representing a tremendous many, many millions of people."
That's not exactly subtle. And that's directed at the Republican party, to boot.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialI envision a Trump/Sanders ticket.
They both agree on not talking money from wallstreet and corporate american and believe our trade deals have ruined this country and we have enriched others.
That's actually not a bad idea that. Not sure they'd ever get any legislation past the houses though.