Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bballwaterboy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2016 Issues Race
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
1,469 replies · 114K views
Physics news on Phys.org
Trump wins in South Carolina, Clinton in Nevada
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c4f378baf5404e569d3a2a4e2581996b/republicans-face-s-carolina-dems-battle-nevada

Jeb Bush Ends Presidential Campaign
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/20/467505778/jeb-bush-ends-presidential-campaign
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/jeb-bush-drops-republican-race-president-014432613--election.html

Donald Trump has won the South Carolina primary, while Florida Sen. Marco Rubio appears to have edged out Texas Sen. Ted Cruz for second place.
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/20/467507410/trump-cruz-and-rubio-battle-for-south-carolina-prize

Earlier tonight, there were reports that Trump was losing support.
Code: 
Trump  31%
Cruz  19%
Rubio  17%
Kasich 10%
Bush  9%
Carson  7%
South Carolina
https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/south-carolina/
Donald Trump is favored to win the Republican primary in the crucial Palmetto State. (6:25 pm EST)

Washington Post analysis and data from Huffington Post's Pollster. Feb 18

New data: Donald Trump loses support ahead of South Carolina primary
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-dat...head-of-south-carolina-primary-election-2016/

NBC: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz lead the field into the South Carolina Republican Primary. (before precincts begin reporting)
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...licans-next-choose-presidential-races-n521651

"Many Palmetto State republicans apparently have indicated that sharing religious beliefs with a presidential candidate is important to them, including 45 percent who feel it matters a great deal, 32 percent feel that it matters somewhat, while 11 percent apparently feel it does not matter much, and 11 percent who expressed sharing religious beliefs doesn't matter at all." Kind of interesting influence. I have to wonder how strong the sentiment is across the south and in the Midwest.

Cruz Hopes To Overcome Bitter Accusations With Faith
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/19/46736...pes-to-overcome-bitter-accusations-with-faithMeanwhile - way out west - apparently Hillary Clinton declares a big win. 5% is not a big margin.
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/20/467503655/hillary-clinton-projected-to-win-nevada-caucuses
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wealthy donors drawn to Rubio White House bid after Bush drops out
http://news.yahoo.com/wealthy-donors-drawn-rubio-white-house-bid-bush-052900358.html

"Jeb's network is already naturally migrating to Marco," said Gaylord Hughey, a top Bush fundraiser from Texas, echoing what four other top donors told Reuters. "It's the clear path."

"It's a stampede," added another donor, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wanted to give Bush some time after dropping out before he went public with his support of Rubio, the U.S. senator from Florida.
Rubio, the new establishment candidate.John Kasich's South Carolina Primary Speech
http://news.yahoo.com/video/john-kasichs-south-carolina-primary-011802505.html
 
Latest http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html on GOP possible match ups versus Clinton, suggesting nearly anybody standing up can beat Clinton in the general election, *except* for Trump:

  • Clinton vs Trump: Clinton by 2.8
  • Clinton vs Rubio: Rubio by 4.7
  • Clinton vs Cruz: Cruz by 0.8.
  • Clinton vs Kasich: Kasich by 7.4
Assuming Trump is beaten in the primaries, he may be doing the GOP a favor by drawing the Democratic smears, i.e. a sort of honeypot, like this comparison of Trump to Hitler published in the Washington Post, a former newspaper and now tabloid.
 
mheslep said:
Latest http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html on GOP possible match ups versus Clinton, suggesting nearly anybody standing up can beat Clinton in the general election, *except* for Trump:

  • Clinton vs Trump: Clinton by 2.8
  • Clinton vs Rubio: Rubio by 4.7
  • Clinton vs Cruz: Cruz by 0.8.
  • Clinton vs Kasich: Kasich by 7.4
Assuming Trump is beaten in the primaries, he may be doing the GOP a favor by drawing the Democratic smears, i.e. a sort of honeypot, like this comparison of Trump to Hitler published in the Washington Post, a former newspaper and now tabloid.

This is assuming that Clinton actually wins the Democratic nomination. There is still a (strong) possibility that Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, and I've seen other polls which indicate that Sanders can handily beat all of the other GOP candidates for the presidency (including Trump). I'll provide a link to that poll subsequently once I find it.

Aside: It is curious that Clinton's primarily line of attack against Sanders is that she is "more electable" than Sanders, when the polls indicate the opposite.
 
StatGuy2000 said:
There is still a (strong) possibility that Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination,
Sanders has done better than expected and well in the NE, but he's completely non-competitive with Clinton in the South. Since SC and Nevada: Clinton 502 delegates, Sanders 70, and Sanders doesn't have four other guys he can claim are drawing off his votes and delegates. In the South, Sanders is no contest. Georgia is Clinton +38. Texas is Clinton +29. Florida is Clinton +39. NC Clinton +20. Virginia Clinton +17. The Democratic nomination is over unless Clinton gets a criminal referral from the FBI on the handling of classified information.

Edit
StatGuy2000 said:
Aside: It is curious that Clinton's primarily line of attack against Sanders is that she is "more electable" than Sanders, when the polls indicate the opposite.
Agreed.
 
Last edited:
Learn how to speak to the audience - Kasich thanks women ‘who left their kitchens’ to support him
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/kasich-women-who-left-their-kitchens-204507982.html

Well, the may have been the case 40 years ago. My mom spent a lot of time in the kitchen. So did I in the afternoon before dinner.

Ted Cruz fires longtime campaign spokesman Rick Tyler over tweet (not sure about Facebook) about Rubio and the Bible
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ted-cruz-fires-spokesman-over-facebook-post-about-223008143.html

GOP to Kasich: Get out <- That's not nice!
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/gop-insiders-want-kasich-gone-219634
Republican leaders want him to step aside in favor of other establishment candidates.
 
Last edited:
mheslep said:
Sanders has done better than expected and well in the NE, but he's completely non-competitive with Clinton in the South. Since SC and Nevada: Clinton 502 delegates, Sanders 70, and Sanders doesn't have four other guys he can claim are drawing off his votes and delegates. In the South, Sanders is no contest. Georgia is Clinton +38. Texas is Clinton +29. Florida is Clinton +39. NC Clinton +20. Virginia Clinton +17. The Democratic nomination is over unless Clinton gets a criminal referral from the FBI on the handling of classified information.

From the various different news sources I've followed, Sanders is primarily non-competitive among older (and especially older African-American voters), who comprised a significant chunk of the primary voting in Nevada, and likely many of the other states as well. That being said, the early polls have shown Clinton being far ahead of Sanders, only to see her lead diminish (after all, the Sanders campaign have sought to reach out to African American and Hispanic American voters, and Clinton is not necessarily as popular among minority voters compared to her husband), so in no way do I think that the Democratic nomination is even close to being over -- not by a long shot. I am of course setting aside any of the controversy regarding the handling of classified information on Clinton's part, which from what I've read amounts to a whole bunch of nothing.
 
StatGuy2000 said:
That being said, the early polls have shown Clinton being far ahead of Sanders, only to see her lead diminish
Not really the case. Sanders and Clinton were http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html Sanders has never been remotely close in the South. I agree he'll improve, but he's still down double digits with a week to go in Texas. There's no such history in the southern polls to show when Sanders has ever had any strength, in any southern state.

StatGuy2000 said:
(after all, the Sanders campaign have sought to reach out to African American and Hispanic American voters, and Clinton is not necessarily as popular among minority voters compared to her husband),

The candidates don't include Bill; its Bernie v Hillary. Among minorities, it is no contest.

Diff-Between-White-and-Non-White-Dmocrats.png
 
mheslep said:
Not really the case. Sanders and Clinton were http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html Sanders has never been remotely close in the South. I agree he'll improve, but he's still down double digits with a week to go in Texas. There's no such history in the southern polls to show when Sanders has ever had any strength, in any southern state.
The candidates don't include Bill; its Bernie v Hillary. Among minorities, it is no contest.

Diff-Between-White-and-Non-White-Dmocrats.png

The graphics above indicates that, while there is still a sizable gap in support between Clinton and Sanders among non-white Democratic voters, that gap has narrowed somewhat (the trajectory of support for Sanders is on the upswing, and the support for Clinton is on the downswing). This indicates to me that there is still room for the Sanders campaign to make inroads among non-white voters if they tailor their message in the right way (the article you linked indicates some problems that the campaign has in that area).

Unlike you, I am at this stage by no means dismissing a Sanders win just yet. For a supposed front-runner (and when I say front-runner, all of the media commentary had seemed to indicate that Clinton was a virtual shoo-in for the Democratic presidential nomination, many months before actual campaigning even begun), Clinton ought to be doing much better than she actually is.
 
Can anyone clarify Sanders is a Marxist and/or his Marxist ties? Also, it seems Sanders backed the terrorist IRA group during their prison starvation tactic? (these are easily found on google, but I can easily find the many sources if you want, I just can't right at this moment as I am so busy) Is he just some hippy that goes back and forth between anti-government issues when what we need right now is someone that can bring things together?
 
Astronuc said:
"Ohio Gov. John Kasich and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson remain in the race, but neither was competitive in Nevada."
To give Rubio and Cruz a chance everyone else needs to drop out.
 
Greg Bernhardt said:
To give Rubio and Cruz a chance everyone else needs to drop out.
I'm sure Cruz feels Rubio et al should drop out, and Rubio feels Cruz et al should drop out.Cruz made comment a few days ago about having an active military of 1.4 million. Ostensibly, he would have to cut other parts of the federal budget so as not to increase overall spending.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/south.../2016/02/ted-cruz-2016-military-policy-219322
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt
Evo said:
Can anyone clarify Sanders is a Marxist and/or his Marxist ties? Also, it seems Sanders backed the terrorist IRA group during their prison starvation tactic?
It appears there are a number of sites, which portray Sanders as a Marxist.

Sanders in his own words: "I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal." The statement is about 2/3's down the page in the following link:
https://berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united-states/

Some 'Marxist' website on Sanders: http://www.marxist.com/usa-bernie-sanders-and-the-2016-presidential-election.htm

Regarding the IRA, it seems more a matter of protesting British treatment of incarcerted IRA members. A letter to Thatcher is posted, a
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/h...t-Thatcher-about-the-IRA-hunger-strikers.html

I haven't found any endorsement or support of the IRA or their use of violence against Protestants or others.As for Sanders ability to unite the country, some his rhetoric seems somewhat divisive, or at least inflammatory to some.
 
Astronuc said:
It appears there are a number of sites, which portray Sanders as a Marxist.

Sanders in his own words: "I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal." The statement is about 2/3's down the page in the following link:
https://berniesanders.com/democratic-socialism-in-the-united-states/

Some 'Marxist' website on Sanders: http://www.marxist.com/usa-bernie-sanders-and-the-2016-presidential-election.htm

Regarding the IRA, it seems more a matter of protesting British treatment of incarcerted IRA members. A letter to Thatcher is posted, a
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/h...t-Thatcher-about-the-IRA-hunger-strikers.html

I haven't found any endorsement or support of the IRA or their use of violence against Protestants or others.As for Sanders ability to unite the country, some his rhetoric seems somewhat divisive, or at least inflammatory to some.
Thank you! We need to scrap the whole bunch of contenders and start over with a fresh batch, just IMO.

Why isn't Mitt Romney running? If he stepped into the race right now, wouldn't he more or less be guaranteed the Republican nomination?
 
Evo said:
Why isn't Mitt Romney running? If he stepped into the race right now, wouldn't he more or less be guaranteed the Republican nomination?
He doesn't want to lose for a third time (against Hillary). I am not sure Trump voters would switch to Romney. Trump voters are trying to make a statement.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Evo
Chris Collins explains his support for Trump’s candidacy - What!? Temporary insanity? One too many :headbang: ?
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/washington-politics/chris-collins-explains-his-support-for-trumps-candidacy-20160224
WASHINGTON – Rep. Chris Collins, a mainstream Republican from Clarence, on Wednesday became the first sitting member of Congress to endorse bombastic billionaire Donald Trump for president.

“Donald Trump has clearly demonstrated that he has both the guts and the fortitude to return our nation’s jobs stolen by China, take on our enemies like ISIS, Iran, North Korea and Russia, and most importantly, re-establish the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to attain the American Dream,” Collins said in a statement released first to The Buffalo News.
:oldsurprised:

I heard Collins say that Trump is a businessman, and we need to run the country like a business.

It reminds me of a comment a manager once made to me, "A business is not a democracy." Funny that the top managers made out like bandits when the company crashed. Two had received nice bonuses and golden parachutes. Didn't leave much for the remaining stockholders.
 
Astronuc said:
Chris Collins explains his support for Trump’s candidacy - What!?
Heh heh! Just one more piece of writing on the wall that Trump - like it or not - is nearly certain to be the Republican nominee and quite possibly the next US president. We all need to wrap our heads around that.
 
Dotini said:
Heh heh! Just one more piece of writing on the wall that Trump - like it or not - is nearly certain to be the Republican nominee and quite possibly the next US president. We all need to wrap our heads around that.

I have always conceded that Trump may win the nomination, but I don't think he will ever actually elected president (there's a big difference between winning the nomination and winning the general presidential election). But if in the (unlikely) event that Trump actually gets elected, I am considering renouncing my US citizenship.

On that note, there have been various posts on Twitter from Americans who have stated they will move to Canada in the event that Trump is elected President. I don't know how serious any of these posts are (I suspect that many people say they will move to Canada to vent, without actually following through), but here is a link from the Huffington Post below discussing this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/robert-waite/donald-trump-president_b_8828978.html
 
StatGuy2000 said:
I have always conceded that Trump may win the nomination, but I don't think he will ever actually elected president (there's a big difference between winning the nomination and winning the general presidential election). But if in the (unlikely) event that Trump actually gets elected, I am considering renouncing my US citizenship.

On that note, there have been various posts on Twitter from Americans who have stated they will move to Canada in the event that Trump is elected President. I don't know how serious any of these posts are (I suspect that many people say they will move to Canada to vent, without actually following through), but here is a link from the Huffington Post below discussing this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/robert-waite/donald-trump-president_b_8828978.html
If Trump is elected, I won't leave the US. But I will be very, very distressed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: StatGuy2000
lisab said:
If Trump is elected, I won't leave the US. But I will be very, very distressed.

As will I -- it was bad enough that the US was stuck with George W. Bush as president for 2 terms. ?:) The thought of a ******* (word censored) clown & carnival barker like Trump as president makes me shudder!

Now as it happens, I live in Canada, and hence will not have to leave the US.
 
lisab said:
If Trump is elected, I won't leave the US. But I will be very, very distressed.
As an outsider, I believe it is all just political dramas mainly to filter all citizens'ideas to understand their desires ranging from those for basic needs or life support to many more for advanced levels of higher social development.
They are kind of mental challenges to all citizens particularly patriots but then everyone would be more considerate of their own votes and for the one they opt to choose as the next president. Don't be silly (:DD)
 
We do not know the future - it is not set in stone. Perhaps a Trump presidency will have silver linings we cannot presently imagine?

My good friend John, a prominent Seattle bookseller, came down with shingles the very day GW won his second election. IMO, It's bad to take politics too seriously. I have friends, family, property and deep roots that are not worth abandoning, and I expect you might, too.

FWIW, I expect we will get Trump due to the poor choices we have made in the past.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt
Chris Collins' 2013 campaign vision statement similar to Trumps "make America great again" promise, “The United States of America will reclaim its past glory as the Land of Opportunity, restoring the promise of the American Dream, for our children and grandchildren.”

Does anyone have any clue to which period in our history either might be referring ?
 
Astronuc said:
It appears there are a number of sites, which portray Sanders as a Marxist.

Sanders in his own words: "I don’t believe government should own the means of production, ..".

So he says; he may think otherwise. Few leftist politicians outside of the like of Venezuela talk any more about nationalizing companies given the failed history of state companies. Instead, they can propose seizing a large chunk of the company's profits and regulating it's every move. Why go to the trouble of keeping a firm on the national books when it can be controlled in detail by other means, and then, should the firm fail, lay blame on the foibles of private enterprise.

Sanders windfall profits tax:
https://votesmart.org/public-statem...ig-oils-big-profits&speechType=4#.Vs9iPahOmf0
 
Last edited:
Op-Ed (LA Times) A presidential run by Michael Bloomberg could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...-12th-amendment-bloomberg-20160225-story.html

In the next couple of weeks, Michael R. Bloomberg will decide whether to launch an independent bid for the presidency. That's an enticing prospect, since the continuing strength of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders threatens to force a radical choice between two extremes. Nevertheless, before succumbing to centrist temptation, the former New York City mayor should take a hard look at the Constitution. He will find that his run for the White House could precipitate one of the worst constitutional crises in American history.

The problem is the 12th Amendment. Enacted in 1804, it establishes the rules for presidential selection if no candidate secures a majority of 270 electoral votes — a distinct possibility should Bloomberg enter the race. The sphere of competition will then move from the states to the House of Representatives, . . . .
Even without Bloomberg, it could still move into the House of Representatives if neither GOP or Dem candidate obtains 270 electoral votes.