News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[DiracPool]

A Trump/Cruz ticket or a Trump/Kasich ticket might well win the general election against the damaged Clinton

Kasich stated pretty clearly that he would not run with Trump, and I believe him. Cruz might, though. Once this primary is over, though, get ready for the Obama bashing.

I get really puzzled when all these republicans talk about how the Obama presidency was a "disaster." I remember when George W. was president, I was constantly shocked and scared at the incompetence of these people. I haven't felt that way since Obama took office, to be frank. As far as I can see from the big picture of things, Obama pulled us out of a possible major depression, pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, hunted down and killed Osama Bin Laden, and seemingly did several other things to, yes, clean up the mess George W. Bush and the republican bozos left behind. I shudder to think what would have happened if Obama didn't win.

So, basically, I don't understand this Obama bashing. I can see why Hillary would want to hitch her car to Obama's train. That's the logical move, as far as I can see.

 

[mheslep]

... pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan...

Edit: Obama sharply increased the troop levels in Afghanistan, then decreased them though the US is not out and will not be when Obama leaves office. The US has thousands of troops in both Iraq and http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/624447/obama-adjusts-troop-levels-for-continuing-afghanistan-mission, is still taking casualties in Afghanistan, attacked Libya.

Obama said he would maintain the current posture of 9,800 troops in Afghanistan through most of 2016.

"Boots on the ground? We have 3,500 boots on the ground" in Iraq and "we're looking for opportunities to do more,"

 

[DiracPool]

The US has thousands of troops in both, is still taking casualties in Afghanistan, attacked Libya.

And that's supposed to be who's fault? Obama's? Are you trying to tell me that if the neo-cons stayed in power there would have been more peace in the world? If Bush had another year or two in office, Iran was next and who knows after that. All I know is that, during the Bush administration, the world hated us, and I didn't like us much either. Now I don't feel that way and the rest of the world doesn't either. I mean, other than the usual hate You know what I mean, there's the usual hate everyone has for America and then there's the scary George W Bush kind of hate.

 

[gleem]

Did they say how many Democrats won't vote?

No. not on that program. This morning it was reported in another republican poll that 40% of republicans polled would vote for a third party candidate.

 

[mheslep]

And that's supposed to be who's fault? Obama's?

Sykes-Picot agreement, Britain and France and the partitioning of the Middle East? If the idea is to renounce responsibility for two presidential terms, might as well go way back.

Are you trying to tell me that if the neo-cons stayed in power there would have been more peace in the world? If Bush had another year or two in office, Iran was next and who knows after that. All I know is that, during the Bush administration, the world hated us, and I didn't like us much either. Now I don't feel that way and the rest of the world doesn't either. I mean, other than the usual hate You know what I mean, there's the usual hate everyone has for America and then there's the scary George W Bush kind of hate.

If you want a discussion, start with the facts, then we can go on to subjective conclusions. When claiming to know what the "world" thinks, I see only an interest in narrative, immune to the history.

 

[Astronuc]

Donald Trump is winning all the angry states
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-is-winning-all-the-angry-states-135937120.html
He's dominating states with weak economies -- but is vulnerable in most prosperous states.

Anger with an underperforming economy isn’t the only factor determining voter loyalties. Exit polls, for instance, show that some Republicans feel betrayed by their party, leading them to outsider candidates such as Trump. Among Democrats, Bernie Sanders’ campaign has clearly been driven by voters fed up with the status quo, yet Sanders has only won 9 of 25 states, while his rival Hillary Clinton—the very face of the Democratic establishment—seems poised to win the nomination.

I hear commentary about how great the economy is, but it seems a lot of folks feel left behind, because they are struggling with incomes that don't provide a certain standard of living in conjunction with too much debt.

 

[mheslep]

So, basically, I don't understand this Obama bashing.

To find a 8 yr period where US annual GDP growth has not gone above 3% one has to go back to the Great Depression.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A191RL1Q225SBEA

Real unemployment, U6, has averaged 13%
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/U6RATE

CBO on Obama federal minwage hike would cause employment drop in range from slight to 1 million, central estimate 500,000.

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers,...

 

[DiracPool]

To find a 8 yr period where US annual GDP growth has not gone above 3% one has to go back to the Great Depression.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/A191RL1Q225SBEA

Real unemployment, U6, has averaged 13%
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/U6RATE

CBO on Obama federal minwage hike would cause employment drop in range from slight to 1 million, central estimate 500,000.

Thanks, I'm going to email those links to my dad whose property value plummeted from 940K to 450K back in 2008 but is now steadily getting back on track. I'm also going to email it to three of my vendors that went out of business and several of my friends that lost their jobs at the same time, all of which, after more than a year of being basically unemployed after the Bush financial crash, have slowly rebuilt their lives and careers. I think these links will convince them how terrible Obama's fiscal policy is and how we need to revert back to trickle down economics. I'll let you know what they say.

 

[mheslep]

What has Obama done on policy with regard to what you call "trickle down economics" that is a change from the Bush years?

 

[DiracPool]

What has Obama done on policy with regard to "trickle down economics" that is a change from the Bush years?

I don't know, I'm not an economist. All I know is that Obama did some kind of "Keynesian shuffle" that seemed to stem the bleeding. The last press conference I remember Bush having was this one:



After that, it was bad times. I don't remember Obama holding a press conference like this one.

 

[jim hardy]

And it's sure a good thing we didn't help topple any more regimes around the Mediterranean.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump warns of 'riots' if denied White House nomination
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-warns-possible-riots-doesnt-white-house-nod-004546794.html

"If you disenfranchise those people and say, 'I'm sorry, you're 100 votes short,' even though the next one is 500 votes short, I think you would see problems like you've never seen before," he [Trump] said.

"I think bad things would happen. I really do. I wouldn't lead it, but I think bad things would happen."

The Washington Post reporter notes: Donald Trump just threatened more violence. Only this time, it’s directed at the GOP.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...lence-only-this-time-its-directed-at-the-gop/

Trump said Wednesday that a contested GOP convention could be a disaster if he goes to Cleveland a few delegates shy of 1,237 — and doesn’t leave as the party’s nominee.

“I think you’d have riots,” Trump said on CNN.

Noting that he’s “representing many millions of people,” he told Chris Cuomo: “If you disenfranchise those people, and you say, ‘I’m sorry, you’re 100 votes short’…I think you’d have problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen.”

He wouldn't lead it, but he certainly seems to be suggesting it.

 

[Dembadon]

Kasich stated pretty clearly that he would not run with Trump, and I believe him. Cruz might, though. Once this primary is over, though, get ready for the Obama bashing.

I get really puzzled when all these republicans talk about how the Obama presidency was a "disaster." I remember when George W. was president, I was constantly shocked and scared at the incompetence of these people. I haven't felt that way since Obama took office, to be frank. As far as I can see from the big picture of things, Obama pulled us out of a possible major depression, pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, hunted down and killed Osama Bin Laden, and seemingly did several other things to, yes, clean up the mess George W. Bush and the republican bozos left behind. I shudder to think what would have happened if Obama didn't win.

So, basically, I don't understand this Obama bashing. I can see why Hillary would want to hitch her car to Obama's train. That's the logical move, as far as I can see.

Isn't this thread about the 2016 POTUS race? Should probably start a new thread.

 

[DiracPool]

Isn't this thread about the 2016 POTUS race? Should probably start a new thread.

And why's that? You don't think recent history is relevant to this current race? My point is that, come the general election, it's going to come down to Trump vs. Hillary. We know what Trump is, but what is Hillary? Well, she's two things: 1) She has the Legacy of the 90's Clinton regime and, 2) the legacy of the Obama regime. George W. Bush's legacy is sandwiched between the two. You don't think that the main theme of the general election debate post the primaries is going to be "Do you want another 8 years of Obama and Bill Clinton, America?"

 

[Dembadon]

And why's that?

The question was pretty broad: "why all the Obama hate?" You're going to have to work pretty hard to keep that on track with the developments in the current candidates' campaigns.

You don't think recent history is relevant to this current race?

The only thing I'm questioning is the degree of relevance, not whether it's relevant.

My point is that, come the general election, it's going to come down to Trump vs. Hillary. We know what Trump is, but what is Hillary? Well, she's two things: 1) She has the Legacy of the 90's Clinton regime and, 2) the legacy of the Obama regime. You don't think that the main theme of the general election debate post the primaries is going to be "Do you want another 8 years of Obama, America?"

Well, a number of posts have been made about Bush's presidency. I don't see Trump adopting any of his policies or methods any time soon, so it's already veering off course.

That's just my take on it. I have no issues discussing your question, just letting you know that it might be harder to keep on topic than you think. Of course, it's up to the mentors. If they let it go I'll be happy to join. Just keeping a safe distance for the time being.

 

[russ_watters]

In general, candidates of incumbent parties will hitch their wagon to their predecessor or not based on whether they think it will help them. One of the things that hurt Gore in 2000 was that being the VP it was impossible to unhitch his wagon from Clinton and while the economy was good in the Clinton years, unfortunately for Gore, the stock market crashed and we were entering a recession as he was trying to get elected.

 

[jim hardy]

He wouldn't lead it, but he certainly seems to be suggesting it.

There are plenty of immoderates threatening it .

Ascribing the origin of the threat to Trump is not honest reporting.

I expect mob violence outside the convention, mostly AFL-CIO backed.

 

[mheslep]

There are plenty of immoderates threatening it .

Ascribing the origin of the threat to Trump is not honest reporting.

...

That's all true, and the violent protesters, the disruptive and their organizers are grossly under-covered, all while the one-punch senior citizen Trump supporter for a moment became, I imagine, the most famous guy in the US.

None of this excuses a serious presidential candidate for excusing (and threatening) riots if he fails to win due to not getting enough votes. It is Trump who's has first to call for the rules to be bent, that if he falls a little short, he should win anyway. Here's what is known about the majority of GOP primary voters so far: they support not-Trump, 701 to 621.

 

[jim hardy]

Here's what is known about the majority of GOP primary voters so far: they support not-Trump, 701 to 621.

Both GOP frontrunners present themselves as anti "GOP-establishment ". That's no small part of their appeal.
Robert Reich observes: 'the largest US political party is the folks who don't vote.'
They're coming out in droves to vote for Trump and Sanders.

I expect the establishment GOP to finagle their rules so convention can nominate Kasich.

A Trump/Sanders third party would only mildly surprise me, probably assuring Hillary in '16.

As much as i'd be disappointed by that turn of events - we have to live in the world we're in.

old jim

 

[Dembadon]

I expect the establishment GOP to finagle their rules so convention can nominate Kasich.

There's a lot of fuss about this from Trump's supporters. As I understand things, states bind their delegates for the first ballot at the convention. Some states, like Tennessee, bind them for the first two rounds. Are you saying the RNC will throw that rule out? Is there any rational reason to suspect a conspiracy theory that would require hundreds of delegates to break the current rules that are in place for the convention?

 

[mheslep]

If Trump doesn't have half by the convention, and still doesn't win on the first ballot, I hope that's the end of any static about how he deserves to win, how it should be a golf gimme. Otherwise, the gimme argument becomes delusional, as if the nominee is chosen by a giant referendum and not the reality of a convention of delegates with an enormous rule book.

It's done that way for a reason, to get an enormous majority of the party behind a nominee for the general. Trump has drawn out new voters, but he has done so with an in your face, you're all losers, Mussolini said cool stuff campaign style. Typically voters supporting others can make their peace the leader, but not with Trump, and he has only himself to blame.

 

[jim hardy]

Are you saying the RNC will throw that rule out? Is there any rational reason to suspect a conspiracy theory that would require hundreds of delegates to break the current rules that are in place for the convention?

Haven't you heard, republican bigwigs are meeting today to figure out how to "stop Trump" ?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/rnc-weighs-scrapping-convention-rule-book-to-head-/
Did you hear William Kristol say he'd rather lose to Hillary ?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/
Did you miss the meeting at Sea Island ?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...et-meeting-with-top-republicans-to-stop-trump
http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/aei-world-forum-trump/

 

[jim hardy]

And look how they spun the Washington Times headline !

RNC weighs scrapping convention rule book to head off anti-Trump maneuvers

 

[Dembadon]

Haven't you heard, republican bigwigs are meeting today to figure out how to "stop Trump" ?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/rnc-weighs-scrapping-convention-rule-book-to-head-/

That article discusses throwing out the current rule book in favor of a more "transparent" process, whatever that means. It talks about efforts to prevent someone from outside the race being selected. There is no mention of the intent to "unbind" the delegates Trump has already won. In any case, the article contains too much speculation for my taste.

[Peter Feaman] said that even if Mr. Trump arrives at the July convention in Cleveland just shy of 1,237 delegates, he would still be “the odds-on favorite to be the nominee.”

RNC committee members across the country echoed that sentiment.

The convention rules allow a series of ballots if none of the candidates has the requisite 1,237 delegates, and the eventual nominee would not necessarily be the candidate with the most delegates heading into the convention. But that is where Rule 40b would come into play, limiting the alternative names that could be considered.

"Scrapping convention rule book to head off anti-Trump maneuvers" seems pretty shady to me. Why not follow the rules currently in place? Changing things could have the unintended effect of actually giving him an advantage.

Did you hear William Kristol say he'd rather lose to Hillary ?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/

Forgive me, I don't find this dubious article convincing. I don't see anything in there saying Trump is going to be robbed of a legitimate nomination at the convention. That article looks like an out-of-context discussion about the upcoming primaries in Florida and Ohio, which are now over.

Did you miss the meeting at Sea Island ?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...et-meeting-with-top-republicans-to-stop-trump
http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/aei-world-forum-trump/

So a bunch of tech CEOs and Karl Rove get together about how to "stop" Trump? So what? That could mean something as simple as propaganda.

I don't think it's rational, given the information we have right now, to fear some back-door deal is going to rob Trump of his delegates.

 

[Astronuc]

Ascribing the origin of the threat to Trump is not honest reporting..

I'm going by Trump's words that he spoke. I expect journalists and others, including his rivals, are also going by his words.

In a few cases, Trump is getting close to 50% of state primaries and caucuses. In most cases, he's getting less than 40% of the vote. That means the majority of republican voters prefer someone else. If the other candidates (and their supporters) decide they would prefer someone other than Trump, then that's democracy.

Iowa             24.3%  Cruz(won)
New Hampshire    35.4%
South Carolina   32.5%
Nevada           45.9%
Alabama          43.4%
Alaska           33.5%  Cruz(won)
Arkansas         32.8%
Georgia          38.8%
Massachusetts    49.3% 
Minnesota        21.3%  Rubio(won)
Oklahoma         28.3%  Cruz(won)
Tennessee        38.9%
Texas            26.7%  Cruz(won)
Vermont          32.7%
Virginia         34.7%
Kansas           23.3%  Cruz(won)
Kentucky         35.9%
Louisiana        41.3%
Maine            32.6%  Cruz(won)
Hawaii           42.4%
Idaho            28.1%  Cruz(won)
Michigan         36.5%
Mississippi      47.3%
Washington DC    13.8%  Rubio(won)
Wyoming           7.2%  Cruz(won)
Illinois         38.2%
North Carolina   40.2%
Ohio             35.6%  Kasich(won)
Florida          45.7%
Missouri         40.9%

We have yet to see results from Arizona (58), New York (95), Indiana (57), California (172), New Jersey (51) and various other states.

 

[jim hardy]

That means the majority of republican voters prefer someone else. If the other candidates (and their supporters) decide they would prefer someone other than Trump, then that's democracy.

I absolutely agree with that.

In a few cases, Trump is getting close to 50% of state primaries and caucuses. In most cases, he's getting less than 40% of the vote.

Let's not fib with statistics, though.
In most states he's getting more than the other two or three or four candidates, but not more than all of them combined.
Turning that around to imply he's the least popular of the candidates is , well, "spin".

 

[Astronuc]

s

Turning that around to imply he's the least popular of the candidates is , well, "spin".

And I certainly didn't to that. I simply looked at his percentage, and indicated as the raw numbers do, that the majority prefer someone else. There were several other choices, now there are fewer. Individually, Trump is more popular than the others (one-on-one), in most states - so far.

 

[lisab]

There are plenty of immoderates threatening it .

Ascribing the origin of the threat to Trump is not honest reporting.

I expect mob violence outside the convention, mostly AFL-CIO backed.

What makes you think labor unions are planning mob violence? Source, please.

Plenty of suggestions to resort to violence come directly out of Trump's mouth! Take a look:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000004269364/trump-and-violence.html

 

[mheslep]

Haven't you heard, republican bigwigs are meeting today to figure out how to "stop Trump" ?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/rnc-weighs-scrapping-convention-rule-book-to-head-/
Did you hear William Kristol say he'd rather lose to Hillary ?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-give-white-house-hillary-trump-shouldnt-win/
Did you miss the meeting at Sea Island ?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...et-meeting-with-top-republicans-to-stop-trump
http://fortune.com/2016/03/08/aei-world-forum-trump/

Whats wrong with ten guys or a thousand guys opposing Trump? Why don't they have a say? Again, Trump wins half the delegates, like every other nominee for the last half century, and he's the nominee, the end. He doesnt, and the fact that the game goes into overtime doesn't mean some conspiracy is in play.

 

[jim hardy]

I don't think it's rational, given the information we have right now, to fear some back-door deal is going to rob Trump of his delegates.

Fear ? Not the right verb. Anticipate or suspect .

There's plenty of gabbling about it in the news.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html

Political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees, a Republican convention rules member told CNBC, a day after GOP front-runner Donald Trump rolled up more big primary victories.

"The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held. ...

"The rules haven't kept up," Haugland said. "The rules are still designed to have a political party choose its nominee at a convention. That's just the way it is. I can't help it. Don't hate me because I love the rules."

Haugland said he sent a letter to each campaign alerting them to a rule change he's proposing, which would allow any candidate who earns at least one delegate during the nominating process to submit his or her name to be nominated at this summer's convention.
...

Emineth, also a former chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party, told "Squawk Box" in the same interview that he's concerned about party officials pulling "some shenanigan."

"You have groups of people who are going to try to take over the rules committee," he warned. "[That] could totally change everything, and mess things up with the delegates. And people across the country will be very frustrated."