News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[Dotini]

Perhaps not quite rivaling Donald in controversy and fringe appeal, Hillary promises to investigate UFO's.

Reporter Daymond Steer asks Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for her stance on UFOs when she visited the Sun on Tuesday. (MARGARET McKENZIE PHOTO)

When asked about her husband's nonchalant comment about contact with the third kind, Hillary Clinton responded: "I think we may have been (visited already). We don't know for sure."
http://www.conwaydailysun.com/newsx/local-news/123978-clinton-promises-to-investigate-ufos

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...73ce4b014efe0da95db?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps not quite rivaling Donald in controversy and fringe appeal, Hillary promises to investigate UFO's.

Appealing to the far out?

 

[Astronuc]

Right now, the issues seem to be electability and popularity.

GOP establishment loses hope of winning Iowa, New Hampshire
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-establishment-loses-hope-winning-iowa-hampshire-171937927--election.html

 

[Astronuc]

Palin's re-emergence underscores GOP split
http://news.yahoo.com/palins-emergence-underscores-gop-split-082027150--election.html

So it's perhaps little surprise that Palin is re-emerging on the national political scene at this moment of reckoning for Republicans. While she's hardly the conservative kingmaker she once was, Palin remains a favorite of the tea party insurgency, and her endorsement of Donald Trump for the 2016 GOP nomination gives him an added boost of conservative, anti-establishment credibility.

This will certainly be an interesting election year.

 

[Astronuc]

Bobby Jindal dropped out of the GOP race after losing support.

and now the rest of the story -

"When Bobby Jindal exited the Louisiana governor's office, he left behind a string of IOUs for his economic development deals"
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/edwards-owes-155m-cover-jindals-211413083.html

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) -- When Bobby Jindal exited the governor's office, he left behind a string of IOUs for his economic development deals, at least $155 million of which could come due during the next four years of Gov. John Bel Edwards' term.

Ouch. Louisiana is probably hit hard the drop in oil prices.

So what happened to the 'conservatism' in Jindal's case?

 

[Astronuc]

I think the whole GOP presidential candidate slate should quit, and the GOP should draft Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

Otherwise, I hope attention turns to John Kasich, Governor of Ohio.

 

[Student100]

I think the whole GOP presidential candidate slate should quit, and the GOP should draft Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina.

Otherwise, I hope attention turns to John Kasich, Governor of Ohio.

Not Rand Paul? He was always my favorite, his policy stances are rather sane for the most part; although, the Republican primary always brings out of a bit of crazy in all the candidates, however, for shame: .

Interesting stuff: Pauls AMA onReddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/422tnb/i_am_senator_doctor_and_presidential_candidate/

I particularly like:

Hi Dr. Paul,

What do you think of the popular gif of your father? On a scale of funny to hilarious, how would you rate it? Said gif

 

[lisab]

One thing that has surprised me in this election cycle is how strongly the Republican base rejected Jeb. I am aware - very keenly aware - of what the left thinks of the Bush legacy (albeit the vast majority of it is due to W., not his dad). But I had no idea the right felt the same.

I don't agree with most of what Jeb stands for, but I think he's a good guy. Definitely would welcome him as a neighbor. I can't say that about Trump or Cruz.

 

[jtbell]

An interesting take on the Republican race from the BBC, comparing party bigwigs with an airplane passenger who has to choose a meal. It's starting to look like they won't get their first choice, chicken and tomato pasta bake (one of the "establishment" candidates), so they're apparently starting to lean towards the "irradiated, overcooked beef" (Trump) instead of the "tasteless salmon and dill" (Cruz), because they figure they can make deals with the beef.

Is Donald Trump now unstoppable?

 

[russ_watters]

One thing that has surprised me in this election cycle is how strongly the Republican base rejected Jeb. I am aware - very keenly aware - of what the left thinks of the Bush legacy (albeit the vast majority of it is due to W., not his dad). But I had no idea the right felt the same.

I'm surprised too, but I'm not sure though that the reasons are the same as those from the left. If the polls are correct, Bush isn't doing well because he's not far enough to the right, not because he's too far to the right.

 

[Astronuc]

On the horizon - Michael Bloomberg may launch independent U.S. presidential bid: source
http://news.yahoo.com/michael-bloomberg-may-launch-independent-u-presidential-bid-152658508.html

Interesting.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/trump-cruz-battle-iowa-republican-civil-war-brews-181713565.html

Cruz has portrayed Trump as an unscrupulous businessman who favors seizing private property so his casinos can thrive. The senator accuses the tycoon of being an opportunist with no real attachment to conservative values.

The rest of the Republican party has watched amazed, powerless and divided as the anti-establishment candidates have powered along, with party leaders seemingly unable to contain them.

"Trump is a philosophically unmoored political opportunist who would trash the broad conservative ideological consensus within the GOP in favor of a free-floating populism with strong-man overtones," it said in a biting lead editorial.
. . . .
The broadside triggered an angry response from the Republican National Committee, which disinvited the National Review from being a partner of the party's candidate debate on February 25.

 

[Dotini]

A rather breathless CNN reporter at a Republican Iowa caucus pointed out an apparently huge, record turnout at the site.
He showed a long line of people waiting to change party or vote for the first time. He deemed this critical, and said he interviewed some who switched parties to vote for Trump and some to vote against Trump.

If that's true, it could be good news for Bernie. And Rubio?

 

[Astronuc]

Trump’s campaign is getting the most bang for the buck
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-s-campaign-is-getting-the-most-bang-for-the-buck-202159785.html

Trump benefits from uttering ridiculous, absurd or provocative statements, and the media gives him news coverage.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Cruz wins Iowa

 

[Astronuc]

I'm looking at the totals for the caucus votes.

Hillary Clinton  51.15%  665
Bernie Sanders   49.32%  654
Martin O'Malley   0.53%    7

Total                   1326
92.5% reporting

Even if Clinton wins by a handful of votes, they are statistically tied.
Where are the democrats?

Compared to the Republican caucus vote

Ted Cruz         27.70%   50,794
Donald Trump     24.30%   44,561
Marco Rubio      23.07%   42,294
Ben Carson        9.31%   17,074
Rand Paul         4.51%    8,263
Jeb Bush          2.80%    5,132
Carly Fiorina     1.86%    3,419
John Kasich       1.86%    3,414
Mike Huckabee     1.79%    3,276
Chris Christie    1.76%    3,233
Rick Santorum     0.96%    1,761
                        
Total                    183,221
                        
97.3% reporting

 

[Evo]

Looks like the democrats may be happy with either candidate. Where are the Democratic candidates?

 

[Dotini]

So Ted "Awaken the body of Christ!" Cruz has won Iowa, and the polls were off well beyond the percentage of error. I think Ted had the best ground game and team for dealing with the caucus state of Iowa. Kudos to him, a smart and revolutionary man.

Trump has had a moment of clarity to reflect upon his errors and shortcomings.

Rubio has clearly won the backing of the establishment, for all the good and ill that portends.

Dr. Carson is still a strong player.

Rand Paul emerges in a clear 5th, still a player. He's my man!

Jeb Bush. Spent more than all the rest combined, but will he give up?

 

[S.G. Janssens]

I'm looking at the totals for the caucus votes.

Looks like the democrats may be happy with either candidate. Where are the Democratic candidates?

As a foreigner to your politics, I found it quite surprising to see the difference in totals between Democrats and Republicans. Does any of you have an idea of why so few Democrats decided to vote in this caucus, or am I missing an obvious point? Judging by the marginal difference between Sanders and Clinton, one would perhaps expect a higher turnout.

Or is the population of Democrats in Iowa simply very, very small?

 

[Samy_A]

As a foreigner to your politics, I found it quite surprising to see the difference in totals between Democrats and Republicans. Does any of you have an idea of why so few Democrats decided to vote in this caucus, or am I missing an obvious point? Judging by the marginal difference between Sanders and Clinton, one would perhaps expect a higher turnout.

Or is the population of Democrats in Iowa simply very, very small?

The Democrats don't count voters in Iowa, but ... something else:

The vote totals for the Iowa Democratic Party are State Delegate Equivalents, which represent the estimated number of state convention delegates that the candidates would have, based on the caucus results. At the county level, The Associated Press inflates numbers by 100, as state delegate equivalent numbers for some candidates are often very small fractions.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/20...region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region

 

[S.G. Janssens]

The Democrats don't count voters in Iowa, but ... something else:

You are again correct, it is almost scary. Next time I cannot find my house keys, I will ask you to tell me where they are.

It seems a bit curious to me that apparently the raw totals are not mentioned (available?) for the Democrats in Iowa.

 

[Samy_A]

It seems a bit curious to me that apparently the raw totals are not mentioned (available?) for the Democrats in Iowa.

Very strange indeed. I found a total on the website of the Iowa Democratic party: 171,109 voters in total. Not a very transparent process.

 

[BobG]

As a foreigner to your politics, I found it quite surprising to see the difference in totals between Democrats and Republicans. Does any of you have an idea of why so few Democrats decided to vote in this caucus, or am I missing an obvious point? Judging by the marginal difference between Sanders and Clinton, one would perhaps expect a higher turnout.

Or is the population of Democrats in Iowa simply very, very small?

Iowa has a very convoluted system for Democrats. The numbers reflected in the earlier post don't show how many voted for each candidate, but the number of voters is small simply because it's hard to vote (relative to a primary). You have to be available for the full evening and you have to interact with other people at the caucus, etc.

What the numbers from the previous post do show is how many delegates for each candidate move on to the next phase. That's a pretty good indication of how the candidate did, but delegates don't have to vote for the candidate they were selected to represent. There's various reasons they might change their support to a different candidate, with one being their candidate may no longer be in the race by time the delegates meet (which is in March).

After the second phase, a final phase is done to divvy up who gets how many out of 44 delegates.

Besides the delegates that were voted on, there are 8 superdelegates (party office holders, etc) that can vote how they feel. They're not officially committed to any candidate until the convention late in the summer, but most will have at least verbally committed to one candidate or the other. This year, 5 of the superdelegates have already committed to Clinton. Assuming they honor that commitment, she wins Iowa simply by matching Sanders in the delegates "voted" on.

Which partly explains why Clinton is proclaiming victory even though the vote totals look like a tie to the average person.

The actual winner won't be known with 100% certainty for months (at which point it won't matter anymore).

This is somewhat similar to how most states selected delegates in the old days, when the party leadership pretty much selected the party's nominee. TV has made the process more democratic simply because primaries can be exciting and suspenseful and make for good ratings on TV. And lots of TV viewers generates excitement for a party's candidate, which improves his/her chances in the general election.

As to who won, there were about 5 victory speeches between the two parties, so it looks like there were lots of winners. Cruz definitely won. Coming out of Iowa, he holds a commanding lead of 1 delegate over Trump and Rubio. Clinton definitely is winning Iowa, since I think she leads by about 4 or 5 or 6 (you never know for sure until they're actually selected) with only 3 superdelegates left to make up their minds.

 

[BobG]

So Ted "Awaken the body of Christ!" Cruz has won Iowa, and the polls were off well beyond the percentage of error. I think Ted had the best ground game and team for dealing with the caucus state of Iowa. Kudos to him, a smart and revolutionary man.

Trump has had a moment of clarity to reflect upon his errors and shortcomings.

Rubio has clearly won the backing of the establishment, for all the good and ill that portends.

Dr. Carson is still a strong player.

Rand Paul emerges in a clear 5th, still a player. He's my man!

Jeb Bush. Spent more than all the rest combined, but will he give up?

Rubio only has the backing of the "establishment" until New Hampshire. He has a fight to beat out Kasich. The Bush campaign has more money than the other establishment candidates for the primaries past New Hampshire. The only thing Iowa has really done for Rubio is to increase his chances of raising money (which is pretty darn important). If Kasich wins New Hampshire and starts attracting money as well, then there might not be a consensus "establishment" candidate. But I agree that Bush has to show something pretty quickly. Personally, I think Bush doing poorly in New Hampshire is more important to Rubio than whether Rubio beats Kasich. Christie's only real hope is to climb over the bones of Rubio, Bush, and Kasich after they've devoured each other. Christie sounds good on TV, but he hasn't done the ground work the other candidates have.

Iowa is probably Carson's best performance and probably the only state where he finishes in double digits percentage wise.

Paul will hang there quite a while. Given the race has resembled something dreamed up by the Onion so far, hanging around long enough for the improbable to happen...

I agree that Cruz is the smartest candidate in the field. I'd never vote for him because I believe he'll try to do the things he says he's going to do, but he is smart.

 

[bballwaterboy]

On the horizon - Michael Bloomberg may launch independent U.S. presidential bid: source
http://news.yahoo.com/michael-bloomberg-may-launch-independent-u-presidential-bid-152658508.html

Interesting.

Is it possible for him to win so late in the game?

What are his major policy positions?

 

[Astronuc]

Is it possible for him to win so late in the game?

What are his major policy positions?

One can find some background on Bloomberg's website - http://www.mikebloomberg.com/

One could try - http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm - which has some statements related to various topics

I think some folks think it is too late for Bloomberg who has expressed presidential aspirations for the last decade or so.

In the current cycle - NY Times report
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/n...ing-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html

 

[Astronuc]

Certainly the next president will have a lot on the foreign policy plate: Iraq and Syria, Libya, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, EU, . . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-couple-christie-talks-voted-rubio-080824142--election.html Jeff Ashcraft, Iowa voter: "I would suggest that New Hampshire voters take a look at every single one of the candidates, and do what Gov. Christie said: Get all the information they can, and listen to their hearts," he said. "I'd go further and say, also listen to your head, and marry the two together to make a decision."

Good advice. There is hope.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There is hope.

Hope starts with the contenders. You can't expect excellent outcomes from picking the best rotten apple from the basket.

 

[Astronuc]

Hope starts with the contenders. You can't expect excellent outcomes from picking the best rotten apple from the basket.

I was thinking in terms of the voters, not the candidates.

The next president will have a lot of full plates: foreign policy, global and national security, the US (particularly income/wealth disparity) and global economics, energy policy (including climate change), healthcare, and education just to name some.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I was thinking in terms of the voters, not the candidates.

Right, but I'm saying it doesn't matter how well the voters weigh their options when the options aren't good.

 

[Evo]

I agree that Cruz is the smartest candidate in the field. I'd never vote for him because I believe he'll try to do the things he says he's going to do, but he is smart.

Can you list those things? I'm trying to find a candidate other than Hilary and Sanders that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of me, and I thought Cruz was least scary since the other candidates are criticising him for not being religious enough.

 

[Rx7man]

I don't have much information, but if Rand Paul is much like his dad, that's a good thing.. I really enjoyed watching speeches of Ron's, and the Jon Stewart commentary of the media completely and deliberately not mentioning him.

I think if the Republicans choose a candidate that isn't too right wing they have a good shot at the election regardless of if they're against Clinton or Sanders. From what I see (outside looking in?), the right and the left are in a race to see who can be more extreme, and in my opinion, this only leads to band-aide solutions, policies that are draconian, and uncertainty in everything, including the economy... Trump epitomizes this, and for that reason I find him extremely dangerous, and should he be the Republican candidate I think he will scare many moderate republicans to either not vote or to vote *gasp* for the Democrats.

I wish I had the bandwidth to watch some of the debates.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Hope starts with the contenders. You can't expect excellent outcomes from picking the best rotten apple from the basket.

In your opinion, are both the Republican and the Democrat baskets filled with rotten apples? (Not a trick question, I'm really curious what moderate Americans think of their candidates.)

 

[Bystander]

Both.

 

[Astronuc]

Potential New Hampshire spoiler Kasich could pose threat to Rubio
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-kasich-idUSMTZSAPEC277BZMJY

among New Hampshire voters, a Monmouth University poll released on Sunday found Kasich at 14 percent, compared with 30 percent for Trump and 13 percent for Rubio and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Reflecting Bystander's comment:

Tim Vanblommesteyn, 62, who attended the Kasich town hall in Concord, said he was “disgusted” with both political parties but liked some of what the Ohio governor had to say.

 

[Astronuc]

Results from the 2016 New Hampshire primary
http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-new-hampshire-results/

Trump and Sanders have solid leads.

John Kasich came in 2nd in the republican primary.

 

[jtbell]

if Rand Paul is much like his dad, that's a good thing.

Rand Paul dropped out of the race last week after the Iowa caucus.

Right now, the Associated Press tally on the Democratic side (by way of the BBC) shows the first four finishers as Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley, and... drum roll... Vermin Supreme , followed by 24 other candidates; those guys must have been write-ins.

 

[Dotini]

Results from the 2016 New Hampshire primary
http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-new-hampshire-results/

Trump and Sanders have solid leads.

John Kasich came in 2nd in the republican primary.

Trump and Sanders, both riding the back of populist nationalism, have swept aside the establishment in New Hampshire.

 

[phinds]

Hard to see why Christie or Fiorina would bother to stay in the race now. Fiorina has always been nothing but a footnote but Christie could have had a chance, maybe, or at least it's easy to see how he and his supporters could have thought so, but now ... ?

Amazing the way Trump continues to defy political gravity.

 

[jtbell]

I think the main reason Trump looks so good is that the "establishment" candidates have been fragmenting their support. The CNN results page for NH shows:

45% "Establishment" (Kasich + Bush + Rubio + Christie)
35% Trump
12% Cruz

 

[Astronuc]

Amazing the way Trump continues to defy political gravity.

I think Trump generates his own gravity.

Meanwhile,
Paul Hodes, a Clinton supporter and former U.S. congressman from New Hampshire, said

“I’m hoping that Hillary takes a real look at an authentic emotional message that connects with voters from here on."

“She’s enormously intelligent, she’s well-versed in policy, and voters have a short attention span,” Hodes continued. “They’re happy when they’re promised puppies and rainbows.”

So I guess we can expect a more emotional campaign, or at least a more emotional Clinton.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wins-nh-handily-as-democrats-055804907.html

I'm rather annoyed at politicians who are dismissive of the voters or public.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So I guess we can expect a more emotional campaign, or at least a more emotional Clinton.

She can't, she's a robot

 

[Astronuc]

Grand Old Panic over Trump's win
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/grand-old-panic-as-trump-blows-away-the-073124443.html

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Grand Old Panic over Trump's win
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/grand-old-panic-as-trump-blows-away-the-073124443.html

Rubio's poor performance was a bit unexpected. It appears he's another 4 years away from being a viable candidate.

 

[Astronuc]

Rubio's poor performance was a bit unexpected. It appears he's another 4 years away from being a viable candidate.

Rubio is certainly showing his lack of experience.

In the article:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who mauled Rubio in Saturday’s debate and hoped for a boost in New Hampshire as a result, isn’t even likely to try. As soon as it became clear that Christie would not finish in the top five Tuesday, despite spending more days in the Granite State, at 75, than any other candidate, the governor announced that he was heading home to “take a deep breath” and reassess his struggling campaign.

I would expect Christie to withdraw soon.

“He has almost no money,” said Spencer Bachus, a former Republican Congressman from Alabama who served for 16 years with Kasich. “The big money has gone to Bush, Trump is self-financed and Cruz has a lot of Texas money. John has been operating on a shoestring.”

On to South Carolina.

The South Carolina GOP presidential primary is set for Saturday, February 20, 2016. With the New Hampshire primary in the rearview mirror, attention will shift to the Palmetto State, whose “First in the South” primary is next up on the GOP primary schedule. After South Carolina, the GOP campaign moves to Nevada, which holds its caucus on Tuesday, February 23.

South Carolina and Nevada vote in the opposite order for the Democrats, whose Nevada caucus is February 20 and whose South Carolina primary is February 27.

March madness starts with SuperTuesday on March 1.

List of primaries and caucuses
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

 

[gleem]

With Trump's win in NH do you think it will embolden him to escalate his perverse strategy using offensive and outrageous rhetoric like ...I won't loose any votes even if I shoot someone on 5th ave. or Cruz is a p...!

Will voters come to their senses or will it stimulate a "mob mentality" for change at any cost.

 

[phinds]

Will voters come to their senses or will it stimulate a "mob mentality" for change at any cost.

Why would you expect it to change? Is there some reason why, if voters were going to "come to their senses", they would not already have done so? On what do you base your implicit assumption that they have any "senses" to come to.

Trumps successes have left me with a very dim view of a large swath of American voters.

 

[gleem]

Trumps successes have left me with a very dim view of a large swath of American voters.

Before the voting about 40% said that they where undecided. I was hoping that they had some sense left. So after the voting and Trump's victory I was disappointed but not surprised in the obvious decision of these voters to head for Trump. This is NH and mostly rural which is usually quite conservative where you expect to find people living off the grid. Keep in mind the state motto "Live Free or Die" not big government fans.

I expect He will be strong in South Carolina too even the democrats are conservative.

 

[Dotini]

Trumps successes have left me with a very dim view of a large swath of American voters.

Do you take a dim view of those who have lost their jobs to foreign competition? Do you take a dim view of young men and women who have graduated college with $80k debt and no prospect of employment?

 

[phinds]

Do you take a dim view of those who have lost their jobs to foreign competition? Do you take a dim view of young men and women who have graduated college with $80k debt and no prospect of employment?

No, I take a dim view of anyone who thinks The Donald would make a good president regardless of their other characteristics.