Re: US General Election 2016

by bungobaggins Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:23 pm

G Dub stumps for his lil bro.

by bungobaggins Tue Feb 16, 2016 10:28 pm

Eldorion wrote:

That was actually kind of sad. Sad

Jeez do I actually feel sorry for Jeb? Neutral

by Bluebottle Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:35 am

by halfwise Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:10 pm

It's nice to have somebody who tells it like it is. Of course, there's some people who will say that's what Trump is doing!

by Eldorion Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:22 pm

To be honest, I agree with both Bernie and Donald on the Bush legacy. But that's about the only thing I've agreed with Trump on. Stopped clock and all that.

by bungobaggins Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:26 pm

Yeah, after thinking about it for a while I can't get behind Bernie's campaign anymore.

by halfwise Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:37 pm

What turned you off?

by bungobaggins Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:41 pm

Way too far left. Too many promises, "free" healthcare, "free" college. These won't be "free" programs. Some one is going to have to pay for them, and it's not going to be just the one-percenters... you'd have to be pretty far gone to think that.

Hell, I'm still paying off student loans, will mine be forgiven because they have this magical free college program? Yeah, right.

by halfwise Wed Feb 17, 2016 9:45 pm

Exactly. That's why despite her obvious drawbacks I have to go for Hillary: at least she's realistic. The question then becomes whether in the final election voters will go for someone they are not sure they really trust, or someone who's batshit crazy (unless pigs fly and Kasich gets nominated). Gotta love democracy. Laughing

by Mrs Figg Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:42 pm

Bernie sounds like the US version of Corbyn.

by Eldorion Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:53 pm

Bernie would be a pretty standard social democrat in Europe, probably even considered fairly moderate, but given the differences in political culture he is kind of our version of Corbyn. Though a lot of his proposals are not even that controversial on unpopular in the US. It's his insistence on using the socialist label (which, from a global perspective, is not even that accurate) that is his biggest obstacle.

by halfwise Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:09 pm

I think even without him using the label people would use it on him. His plans are just too simple and obvious.

by Eldorion Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:10 pm

People use it on Obama all the time, and he's as centrist as they come in the Democratic party these days. They'd be using it on Clinton right now if it wasn't for Sanders. They probably will use it on her in the general if she wins the nomination, especially since she and Sanders are very similar on a lot of fronts, especially domestic policy, and had 93% similar voting records in the Senate.

by halfwise Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:11 am

This is not what I would have expected:

Poll: Trump beats Clinton head-to-head
By Bradford Richardson

A new poll finds Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton losing to four top Republican presidential contenders, including Donald Trump, in hypothetical general election matchups.

Clinton trails Republican primary front-runner Trump by a 45-43 margin head-to-head, according to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday.

Clinton also loses to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), 45-44, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), 48-42 and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, 49-38.
Her Democratic primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), fares slightly better against the GOP competition, besting Cruz by a 44-42 margin.

But Sanders still loses to Trump by 1 point, 44-43, Kasich by 3, 44-41, and Rubio by 4, 46-42, head-to-head.

Many of the results are within the poll’s 3-point margin of error.

“Bernie Sanders is closing the Democratic primary gap and is stronger than Hillary Clinton in the general election,” David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center, said in a statement.

Paleologos also highlighted Kasich’s strong showing in the general election match-ups, on the heels of his second-place finish in New Hampshire.

“On the Republican side, John Kasich’s strong second-place showing has made him more appealing in the general election than Marco Rubio, who faltered in the Republican debate leading up to New Hampshire,” he said.

The USA Today/Suffolk poll surveyed 1,000 voters by telephone from Feb. 11–15.

--------

Humph. The American public doesn't go for who seems reasonable. The "US General Election" thread should be classed as a subdivision of "Further Proofs America is Wacko".

by David H Thu Feb 18, 2016 7:06 am

Whether Hillary or Bernie gets the Democratic nomination, I think the Democratic Party can roll with it. On the other hand, If Trump gets the Republican nomination it will be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. I just can't imagine all the old guard congressmen and governors putting any heart into stumping for The Donald Rolling Eyes

My theory of why Trump is being so successful now is this: the Republicans seem to have patterned their 2016 primaries on the TV series "Survivor", and Trump is an old pro at reality TV, therefore it's only logical that he's beating the amateurs!

by halfwise Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:05 pm

The question is whether the general election will also play like a survivor episode. pale

Nate Silver's point that only 40% of Republicans at best support Trump so he can't be elected doesn't hold up when he's matched against Hillary. Right now I'm trying to puzzle out what kind of person would support Trump over Hillary but Bernie over Trump (though the poll percentages are so close I don't trust them). My puzzler is getting sore.

Edit: actually I now see the numbers are more subtle. The percentage voting Democrat stays the same, but one more undecided votes for Trump if Hillary runs. So it looks like all that happens is Hillary-hate drives some undecided towards Trump. Given the 3 point margin of error, I'll still go with my gut feeling that Hillary has a better chance of beating any of the Republican front runners because she's more centrist.

by bungobaggins Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:17 pm

Is she a centrist or a progressive? During the lead up to the IA caucus she says she's middle of the road, after she claims to be a progressive and tries to throw herself left of Sanders with that hair-brained "victory" speech. So what is she, centrist or progressive? I can say with 100% certainty that she is an opportunist.

by halfwise Thu Feb 18, 2016 2:22 pm

I'd call her a chastened progressive with opportunistic tendencies.

by David H Sat Feb 20, 2016 6:04 pm

The democratic process is still evolving to adjust to the internet. It just gets weirder...

Superdelegate sets up online poll to decide which Democrat he should vote for

By Ann Marie Awad

ORLANDO, Fla., Feb. 18 (UPI) -- A Democratic Party superdelegate is allowing his supporters to vote on which presidential candidate will receive his vote at the nominating convention.

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., emailed supporters Wednesday morning asking them to vote in an online poll. The poll asks supporters to choose whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., should receive Grayson's superdelegate vote.

"Look, I'd be perfectly happy if our nominee were chosen exclusively in the primaries. But 15 percent of the delegates to the Democratic convention are chosen because of who they are, not whom they support," the email said. "And I happen to be one of them. I wrestled with that responsibility for a while, until I realized that I don't have to decide -- I can let you decide."

Grayson is in the race for the Florida Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Grayson's main contender is Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Fla.

"There is a divide between grassroots Democrats and establishment Democrats," Grayson told BuzzFeed. "It's troubling. There's a negation of the popular will when you say that a block of delegates can vote regardless of what voters want."

Superdelegates, who are usually elected officials or state party leaders, are able to vote for any candidate they choose at the party's nominating convention, regardless of who won the primary vote in their state. Superdelegates can "pledge" their vote for a candidate, and so far, 360 have pledged in favor of Clinton compared to 10 who have pledged in favor of Sanders. There is a total of 712 Democratic superdelegates.

Clinton's lead among superdelegates has ignited protest among Sanders' supporters, who are petitioning superdelegates to align their votes with the primary outcomes of their states.

"The point of this is very simple: The point is power to the people," Grayson said. "We're not gonna let the politburo decide this one."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/02/18/Superdelegate-sets-up-online-poll-to-decide-which-Democrat-he-should-vote-for/8241455818212/?spt=trc

by halfwise Sat Feb 20, 2016 7:19 pm

I wouldn't say that's weird, it's sensible. The superdelegate system is to prevent the party from falling victim to the mob mentality and provide institutional continuity (cross-reference the current Republican party) but can be used as needed. I think it's thoughtful of Grayson to effectively 'opt out' if he's not sure the party is representing the base.

by Eldorion Sat Feb 20, 2016 9:00 pm

The irony is that Sanders is exactly the sort of candidate the superdelegate system was put in place to keep out, but the system is so unpopular with the party base that actually using it for its intended purpose would probably backfire in a more costly way than allowing Sanders to get the nomination if he were to win enough primaries.

by David H Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:23 pm

So would there be any rules that would prevent superdelegates from donating their votes to their favorite charity raffle, for example? The winning name gets to pick. That would throw a nice random variable into the equation that would drive pollster batty. Smile

by Eldorion Sat Feb 20, 2016 10:35 pm

Superdelegate votes are entirely up to their discretion. There may be some rules against selling them to candidates, though. Shrugging

Nevada holds its caucuses in the middle of the day so results are already in and it looks like Hillary won narrowly, taking home between one to five more delegates than Sanders. Obviously that's good news for the Clinton campaign in the short term, but the narrow margin of victory undercuts the "Sanders has no appeal with minorities" narrative that people have been pushing for so long and could be a boost to his perceived electability in the eyes of subsequent primary voters. Clinton is still the favorite though.

by Eldorion Sun Feb 21, 2016 12:37 am

AP calling South Carolina for Trump as most polls predicted. The real drama will be in the vote shares and rankings of the other five candidates, which could result in some (especially Jeb and Carson) dropping out after tonight.

by Eldorion Sun Feb 21, 2016 3:20 am

I might actually miss Jeb. I can't even call him a lovable loser, cause he wasn't really lovable, but the race won't feel quite the same without him. I imagine Trump will continue lighting into Cruz but I suspect Rubio will be the focus of a lot more of his attacks now too.

Carson is just stretching out the glorified book tour/Fox News audition for as long as he can, but I'm curious to see how much longer Kasich can string things along. His campaign doesn't have a lot of money, and he still has a long way to go until he reaches another state where he has a plausible shot at a top three finish (I wouldn't go so far as to say that it seems plausible that he wins any states at this point). He really needs to clear the establishment lane for Rubio so the latter can focus on Cruz and Trump. Though on the other hand, it's not clear that all current supporters of "establishment candidates" will necessarily flock to others in that lane.