TRUMP 2016

[Dreadnaught]

Would you vote for Clinton over Cruz, Rubio or Carson?

Rubio is a dreamboat compared to Clinton, despite his somewhat Obama-esque place within the Republican party.

I have been trying to block out thoughts of whether I would vote for Clinton over Trump.

[Lewkowski]

Rubio is a dreamboat compared to Clinton, despite his somewhat Obama-esque place within the Republican party.

I have been trying to block out thoughts of whether I would vote for Clinton over Trump.

I'd vote for neither and just go for whatever schmuck is the Libertarian candidate.

[Lewkowski]

How long has Cruz been in the Senate? What has he accomplished other than blocking its work on every topic? Which relationships has he built? You're not naive enough to believe Cruz's and Trump's rhetoric that one can rule a country through willpower alone, do you? No one will work with Cruz and Cruz won't work with anyone.

He's not knowledgeable enough to hold any positions, and he doesn't have the right advisors to make him informed. Just how easy do you think being president is? You need to know how politics works. You need to have experience running a political system. You need to have the ability to build and maintain relationships. You need to know how the government functions, how people function within the government, and how to get things done. This isn't enough you magically learn on the job. Look at Obama's mistake. Half of them are a result of political inexperience. And you'd replace him with someone who has no experience at all?

Bush and Christie are polling at under 10% combined. Trump is up by a good 25% over Rubio.

Edit: compare Cruz to someone like Paul Ryan, someone who's about as right-wing as Cruz. And yet the guy has the respect of his colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, and manages to get things done. That is what being a politician is about. Promoting one's agenda, but also getting things done. Empty rhetoric doesn't help anyone.

I'm not going to take time to defend Cruz since he's not my first (or 2nd) pick. However I'll maintain he is significantly better than Trump, I could see myself voting for him but I could NEVER see myself voting for that egotistical ass.

Trump may be 25% over Rubio but how many of those voters will go to the primaries? In later states how many folks will be left? You either love Trump (why??? WHY???) or hate him, there isn't any in between. So as the field narrows it plays to the advantage of EVERYONE else. Cruz has a good shot of winning Iowa. Trump isn't dropping. If some more of the no chance folks drop out there support will gravitate toward Rubio. Again... that's my hope.

[GGT]

How long has Cruz been in the Senate? What has he accomplished other than blocking its work on every topic? Which relationships has he built? You're not naive enough to believe Cruz's and Trump's rhetoric that one can rule a country through willpower alone, do you? No one will work with Cruz and Cruz won't work with anyone.

He's not knowledgeable enough to hold any positions, and he doesn't have the right advisors to make him informed. Just how easy do you think being president is? You need to know how politics works. You need to have experience running a political system. You need to have the ability to build and maintain relationships. You need to know how the government functions, how people function within the government, and how to get things done. This isn't enough you magically learn on the job. Look at Obama's mistake. Half of them are a result of political inexperience. And you'd replace him with someone who has no experience at all?

Bush and Christie are polling at under 10% combined. Trump is up by a good 25% over Rubio.

Edit: compare Cruz to someone like Paul Ryan, someone who's about as right-wing as Cruz. And yet the guy has the respect of his colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, and manages to get things done. That is what being a politician is about. Promoting one's agenda, but also getting things done. Empty rhetoric doesn't help anyone.

In other words.....it's no wonder that 'establishment' party politics, and the voting electorate that's mostly sick of politics-as usual, are butting heads. It would be interesting if both (R) and (D) "anti-establishment" candidates are nominated, and the general election is Trump vs Sanders.

[Lewkowski]

In other words.....it's no wonder that 'establishment' party politics, and the voting electorate that's mostly sick of politics-as usual, are butting heads. It would be interesting if both (R) and (D) "anti-establishment" candidates are nominated, and the general election is Trump vs Sanders.

That would be such a depressing general election. Awful, juts awful.

[Aimless]

That would be such a depressing general election. Awful, juts awful.

Who would you vote for in that scenario?

[LittleFuzzy]

In other words.....it's no wonder that 'establishment' party politics, and the voting electorate that's mostly sick of politics-as usual, are butting heads. It would be interesting if both (R) and (D) "anti-establishment" candidates are nominated, and the general election is Trump vs Sanders.

Watch that happen, and then see GGT post a year later whining about how this "anti-establishment" President is being anti-establishment and not working with anyone to get things done.

[Being]

Bloomberg = Wreck of Trump vs Clinton.

[Lewkowski]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/matthews-...zergnet_825764

Not a fan of Matthews but it was a legit question. Trump however is scared to answer because if he says Obama isn't legitimate because he wasn't a US citizen he looks like a birther. If he says he is legitimate he loses with the people currently in his camp (the idiotic faction of the Republican party). So much for the tough guy with the straight talk. Guy can't even answer a simple and legitimate question.

[Loki]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/up...-democrat.html Some interesting data here.

[earthJoker]

So are we going to rename the thread to TRUMP PALIN 2016 any time soon? Would be so much fun.

[Dreadnaught]

Kasich is in second-place in New Hampshire across multiple polls. What's surprising, actually, is Trump is polling first. Which makes me think the polling is garbage.

Let us all pray Trumpites don't vote. Because I kinda think and hope they don't.

[Lewkowski]

Kasich is in second-place in New Hampshire across multiple polls. What's surprising, actually, is Trump is polling first. Which makes me think the polling is garbage.

Let us all pray Trumpites don't vote. Because I kinda think and hope they don't.

In NH I think we'll get a bunch of liberals voting for Trump. Iowa due to the way the caucus works I don't see that happening. Trump is no one's 2nd choice so the Caucus will be very interesting to watch.

[Flixy]

In NH I think we'll get a bunch of liberals voting for Trump. Iowa due to the way the caucus works I don't see that happening. Trump is no one's 2nd choice so the Caucus will be very interesting to watch.

Your primary system is still weird to me especially since it's different per state.

[Aimless]

Okay, boys, what are the odds on

1. Trump vs. Sanders

2. Trump vs. Clinton

3. Trump has an "accident"

[Aimless]

I believe this is an expression of what psychiatrists call "the orange triad":

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...clear-weapons/

[Being]

Or is it Bloomberg vs Trump vs Clinton...

[Flixy]

If, god forbid, Trump actually gets the GOP nomination, do you reckon one of the others will join as a third party nominee?

[RandBlade]

None of the other candidates would (They've all signed not to anyway) but Bloomberg might.

[Flixy]

Signed not to only goes so far when reality sets in. It's not like it's a binding contract is it? I imagine a number of prominent GOP members would prefer a more.. presidential candidate. Let's face it, that promise was meant to prevent right wing candidates ruining the election for them with tea party candidates, not to keep them in.

[LittleFuzzy]

Signed not to only goes so far when reality sets in. It's not like it's a binding contract is it? I imagine a number of prominent GOP members would prefer a more.. presidential candidate. Let's face it, that promise was meant to prevent right wing candidates ruining the election for them with tea party candidates, not to keep them in.

True but at the same time, none of them really have the heft to successfully run as a third-party candidate, not after losing to Trump. So it would end up being a deliberate attack on the GOP voters and nomination process, deliberately trying to hand the election to the Democrats, and would sink the person's career. It can be pulled off in lesser races, particularly by incumbents, but not this general presidential election.

[Flixy]

True but at the same time, none of them really have the heft to successfully run as a third-party candidate, not after losing to Trump. So it would end up being a deliberate attack on the GOP voters and nomination process, deliberately trying to hand the election to the Democrats, and would sink the person's career. It can be pulled off in lesser races, particularly by incumbents, but not this general presidential election.

Fair enough. Though losing a primary doesn't mean you don't have a better shot in a general election (if the center doesn't vote as much in the primary). And if, say, Sanders wins the other nomination there'd be a lot of votes up for grabs in the center, right? (Not that he's expected to win the nomination anyway)

On a side note, if a party's nominee is someone the party doesn't want.. what are that candidate and those who voted for him doing in that party in the first place. A two party system never ceases to amaze me

[RandBlade]

A lot of states also have laws banning those who stood in primaries from standing or appearing on ballot papers as independents I believe. So good look winning a campaign without your party backing and not even being on every ballot paper.

At least with a two party system you know what you're getting before the election and we're normally good at weeding out the Trumps and Corbyn's before they reach office, either in the party stage or the general election stage. With a plethora party system its harder to sift out those undesirables. To win in the US you have to win both the primary and the national election, winning the first one without the other achieves nothing.

[LittleFuzzy]

[QUOTE=Flixy;169620]Fair enough. Though losing a primary doesn't mean you don't have a better shot in a general election (if the center doesn't vote as much in the primary).

Running without the formal support of the party pretty much does mean that though. You'd need to build your own nation-spanning GOTV effort, for instance, and in not all that much time. There are a whole lot of obstacles. In many respects someone who didn't participate in the primary stands a better chance because they wouldn't have been expecting to have this established support system from the party to draw on for the general election. Anyone who decides to continue campaigning despite losing the primary would be a lot further behind, trying to expand and prolong the network built from their primary bid in ways they hadn't anticipated. And no one in the GOP primary now is exactly a screaming centrist either. "At least I'm not Trump" is not the best motivational message to get a large moderate bloc to participate rather than just stay home.

On a side note, if a party's nominee is someone the party doesn't want.. what are that candidate and those who voted for him doing in that party in the first place. A two party system never ceases to amaze me

The parties aren't exactly centralized monoliths. They're aggregations of state parties and even many of those are more collections of county lists than a central organization. US political parties are coordinators and facilitators. The candidate is in that party because they can use it. And the party would have no problem with Trump or anyone else out there just being members, people making donations, proferring their vote, etc. which means they don't have much of a leg to stand on for objecting when the person turns things around and uses them in turn.

A lot of states also have laws banning those who stood in primaries from standing or appearing on ballot papers as independents I believe. So good look winning a campaign without your party backing and not even being on every ballot paper.

I'm not aware of any state that has such a law and I can't see it being enforceable if they do. The parties have ZERO official standing and cannot restrict who may run for general election. You can maybe have a law that FORCES them to run as an Independent and without any label indicating they're in the party whose primary they ran in, but that's as far as I think it can go.

[RandBlade]

[RandBlade]

"Sore loser laws" do exist Fuzzy, though how easily they could be enforced would likely be a matter for the courts. Gary Johnson was prevented by Michigan law in 2012 from appearing on the ballot paper due to running in the Republic primary. EDIT: Although that was due to him wanting to use another parties label, Ohio has other laws and so on.

Though it looks like it is "some states" and not "a lot" that have sore loser laws for Presidential elections.

[earthJoker]

I cannot really believe that it is possible to force someone from running at all. The US is still an open democracy as far as I know, and to me that means everyone has the right to vote and to be voted.

[Lewkowski]

I cannot really believe that it is possible to force someone from running at all. The US is still an open democracy as far as I know, and to me that means everyone has the right to vote and to be voted.

I can't just will myself to be added on the ballot... but yes if everyone wanted to write in my name I could be elected president too.

[RandBlade]

I cannot really believe that it is possible to force someone from running at all. The US is still an open democracy as far as I know, and to me that means everyone has the right to vote and to be voted.

You're not prevented from running but the law permits who is allowed (and not) onto the ballot paper. Since primaries are covered by laws too then they can be used by the law as a test, whether the parties have standing or not is irrelevant the law has standing. The candidate has had the right to be voted for, but they have simply lost the ballot they chose to run on as the law stated beforehand.

[earthJoker]

I wasn't aware that you can write down your own candidate. Still a big disadvantage though.