TRUMP 2016

[LittleFuzzy]

What are you people smoking? Cruz is quite conservative yes but he isn't unhinged like Donald. He doesn't create enemies lists and doesn't think Russia is our BFF. It is difficult to say what Trump's true positions are so I suppose you might be thinking you only have a 50/50 shot of him starting a trade war with China and other moronic things but I for one would rather have stability than a guessing game of what Trump will do next.

I'd prefer Marco over either of them but ultimately anyone but Trump.

Trump is personally obnoxious. But as you say, it is difficult to say what his true positions are. One of the things that indicates (besides that he's a liar but all pretty much any politician is) is that he's actually flexible and bends when it seems called for, he can make compromises. Cruz cannot. Cruz will not. And the President has to be willing to work with the other branches of government. Cruz' record shows he's not willing to work with anyone, not even his own party. His own party colleagues have gone out of their way to hamstring him in-session as a result. That might make him an anti-establishment darling but it doesn't make him a good leader and there's no sign he'd be any different when it comes to foreign policy. "Do it my way or screw you" is not a good starting position for international diplomacy.

That said, I didn't make a claim about which one was worse. I said Cruz wasn't an improvement and he's not. I've vote for Bernie over either (and he's not the Dem I'd prefer to be voting for) so it doesn't matter which one is worse in absolute terms because neither passes the floor-threshold in relative terms.

[GGT]

Trump is personally obnoxious. But as you say, it is difficult to say what his true positions are. One of the things that indicates (besides that he's a liar but all pretty much any politician is) is that he's actually flexible and bends when it seems called for, he can make compromises. Cruz cannot. Cruz will not. And the President has to be willing to work with the other branches of government. Cruz' record shows he's not willing to work with anyone, not even his own party. His own party colleagues have gone out of their way to hamstring him in-session as a result. That might make him an anti-establishment darling but it doesn't make him a good leader and there's no sign he'd be any different when it comes to foreign policy. "Do it my way or screw you" is not a good starting position for international diplomacy.

That said, I didn't make a claim about which one was worse. I said Cruz wasn't an improvement and he's not. I've vote for Bernie over either (and he's not the Dem I'd prefer to be voting for) so it doesn't matter which one is worse in absolute terms because neither passes the floor-threshold in relative terms.

I'd vote for Bernie over ANY Republican. I've never been a Hillary Clinton fan, but if the general election is reduced to Trump vs Clinton, I'd "hold my nose" and vote for Hillary.

[Lewkowski]

Trump may be only pretending to be nuts. Cruz definitely is.

Only he's not. He's a right wing conservative - sorry if you think that is nuts. Pull up his website and point me to the policy that is 'nuts' as opposed to the one you just don't personally disagree with. His actions in the senate have been appropriate. He promised to do his best to curtail spending and that's why he did all he could to gum up the works. While I'd prefer Rubio, Cruz would be great and finally be the person who makes the Democrats blink on spending.

[RandBlade]

I'm starting to think Trump could not only win the nomination (that's all but nailed on now) but could actually beat Hillary (who is also all but nailed on) in November too. Unless there's a Bloomberg third party run, not sure who that helps and hurts yet.

Some key thoughts:
1: When Perot ran in 1992 Turnout jumped by 5% (which is 10% extra voters). Trump has a similar effect.
2: Democrat primary/caucus turnout is down 25% so far. Hillary is not setting the pulses racing in the same way Obama did.
3: GOP primary/caucus turnout is up 25% so far.

[Ominous Gamer]

I'm starting to think Trump could not only win the nomination (that's all but nailed on now) but could actually beat Hillary (who is also all but nailed on) in November too. Unless there's a Bloomberg third party run, not sure who that helps and hurts yet.

Some key thoughts:
1: When Perot ran in 1992 Turnout jumped by 5% (which is 10% extra voters). Trump has a similar effect.
2: Democrat primary/caucus turnout is down 25% so far. Hillary is not setting the pulses racing in the same way Obama did.
3: GOP primary/caucus turnout is up 25% so far.

This could very easily become a Trump presidency. If Bernie doesn't get the nomination those supporters won't necessarily back Clinton. In fact the exact opposite could happen. Bernie and Trump are both seen as anti-establishment and with all the fishiness surrounding Clinton since the god damn beginning of the caucuses/primaries we are going to end up with a lot of people feeling wronged by the same old establishment bullshit they are trying to fight against. Trump presents himself as insane, but he knows exactly what he is doing. I'd almost vote for him over Hillary just to see if him destroying the GOP establishment was the act, or the benefit.

[RandBlade]

I would vote Trump over Bernie, Hillary over Trump. But I'm not a voter in America.

[Being]

I would vote Trump over Bernie, Hillary over Trump. But I'm not a voter in America.

Trump over Sanders, anyone but Clinton.

[Lewkowski]

I'm starting to think Trump could not only win the nomination (that's all but nailed on now) but could actually beat Hillary (who is also all but nailed on) in November too. Unless there's a Bloomberg third party run, not sure who that helps and hurts yet.

Some key thoughts:
1: When Perot ran in 1992 Turnout jumped by 5% (which is 10% extra voters). Trump has a similar effect.
2: Democrat primary/caucus turnout is down 25% so far. Hillary is not setting the pulses racing in the same way Obama did.
3: GOP primary/caucus turnout is up 25% so far.

Unless Hilary gets indicted in the middle of the general election I don't her losing to Trump.

[RandBlade]

Who would you vote for?

[Lewkowski]

Who would you vote for?

Neither I would vote for whoever was running on the Libertarian ticket. I could never bring myself to vote for Clinton or Trump.

[RandBlade]

If Bloomberg did a third party run could you vote for him?

[Veldan Rath]

If Bloomberg did a third party run could you vote for him?

No.

[RandBlade]

No.

Well would you go for Trump or Clinton, or go fourth party in that scenario like Libertarian?

[Ominous Gamer]

Seems about right...

[Veldan Rath]

Well would you go for Trump or Clinton, or go fourth party in that scenario like Libertarian?

Gary Johnson if he secures the Libertarian nomination.

[Aimless]

Guys this may be the answer to the Donald Drumpf problem

[Lewkowski]

"I have the best words." Bwhahahahaha.

[Aimless]

So is the ongoing FBI probe into Clinton's e-mail shenanigans going to be a problem for her in the general election? Will the FBI dare press forward with charges if it ends up being a Clinton vs. Trump election?

[LittleFuzzy]

So is the ongoing FBI probe into Clinton's e-mail shenanigans going to be a problem for her in the general election? Will the FBI dare press forward with charges if it ends up being a Clinton vs. Trump election?

I very much doubt there will be any indictments regardless of who wins the respective nominations. An investigation continuing well into the general election race could hurt her just because of the uncertainty it keeps in the air for her opponents to constantly refer to but beyond that it won't mean anything.

[RandBlade]

I think if the FBI think they have a case then they'll make an arrest.

[GGT]

Seriously? Left wing protests frequently end up with smashed windows, graffiti and other violence. The same can not be said in reverse.

Seriously. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, today's biggest threats for violence come mostly from Right-wing extremist groups. (I'm talking about the US here, no idea how that corresponds to the UK.)

I think that by and large they know what they need to, at least.

They're not anywhere near a mess actually and the fact that there are differences would not and could not make them a jumped mess on a macro level anyway because there is no macro level. They aren't smaller parts of a larger whole, they're each completely independent contributors to something else. They don't HAVE to work together or align in any sort of way, no matter how much it would warm your clockwork little heart for them to be neatly arrayed like that.

Of course there's a macro level.....it's the two-party political system that's dominated our election process for decades.

Delegates don't (not now anyway. In bygone times when the nomination process wasn't such an exercise in public democracy they did but not now, except in conditions which are not realistically imaginable). Super-delegates conceivably could. . . but in practice do not. In practice it turns out they work to support the public democracy process and reinforce the conventional result rather than in the wild-card fashion so fondly talked of in this 24-hour infotainment culture.

What does any of the structure and process have to do with "rejecting conventional party wisdom"? How is any of this a failure as a democratic republic? I see you're in one of your buzzword-controlled delusional states again.

Just look at the Republican Party "establishment" having a shit fit about Trump being their likely nominee. Some are faulting the RNC leadership, wondering why Rience Preibus signed that 'contract' with Trump so he wouldn't make a third-party attempt, that would suck votes from the Republican Party. Others are saying they can't/won't support Trump even if he's the Republican party nominee. These are not my buzzword delusions, Fuzzy.

[Lewkowski]

I think if the FBI think they have a case then they'll make an arrest.

It will be turned over to the AG who will decide if any charges will be brought. They will make a recommendation to pursue or not and it would be awkward if they recommended it and the AG said no. Honestly its the only nightmare scenario I could see Trump ever winning. Trump goes up against Hillary and she gets indicted in August or something crazy.

[GGT]

How would Trump win that scenario....when even GOP 'officials' are suggesting that his fortunes were gained by corrupt croneyism?

[RandBlade]

It will be turned over to the AG who will decide if any charges will be brought. They will make a recommendation to pursue or not and it would be awkward if they recommended it and the AG said no. Honestly its the only nightmare scenario I could see Trump ever winning. Trump goes up against Hillary and she gets indicted in August or something crazy.

The AG would have to follow the FBI advice. I don't see any discretion here.

[GGT]

Let's get back to Trump. There's no way he could have so much support unless there was so much distrust in political party establishment. As Governor Palin said when she endorsed Trump.....conservatives have been had. Too many promises made without real results. The GOP/RNC likes to think they can win elections by appealing to people's fears, but when the biggest fear is nominating a xenophobic fascist like Trump, the whole thing falls apart.

[LittleFuzzy]

The AG would have to follow the FBI advice. I don't see any discretion here.

The AG most certainly doesn't have to follow the FBI's determination. I don't have a clue where you got that idea. If the AG doesn't, Congress could get involved and force the appointment of a special prosecutor though. Actually Congress could do that regardless, it could even do that right now, and have them in charge of the FBI investigation.

[Lewkowski]

The AG would have to follow the FBI advice. I don't see any discretion here.

That's up to her discretion. It isn't exactly the same thing but think about the FBI as you would the police. The police don't have the power to prosecute.

[RandBlade]

The AG most certainly doesn't have to follow the FBI's determination. I don't have a clue where you got that idea. If the AG doesn't, Congress could get involved and force the appointment of a special prosecutor though. Actually Congress could do that regardless, it could even do that right now, and have them in charge of the FBI investigation.

Based on realpolitik not constitutional niceties.

[Aimless]

The AG may determine that the case can't be won based on the evidence.

[LittleFuzzy]

Based on realpolitik not constitutional niceties.

No. Because the investigation isn't independent as it is anyway. The FBI doesn't have its own opinion (which is why various partisans are pushing to have the evidence released even if the FBI concludes there isn't enough to support prosecution) independent of the Justice Department. And the realpolitik reaction is consequently identical regardless of whether the FBI doesn't gather enough evidence or the AG declines to prosecute with what it does have (because those aren't actually two distinct things in the first place).