US Presidential Race

Democrat debate tonight. Had it on while working.

Hillary easily won.

Well what do we have here?

The former 20 point lead Hillary had last month nationally has been cut to 7 or 8 points. Hillary is narrowly winning Iowa, and Sanders is winning New Hampshire (by a larger margin than Hillary is winning Iowa).

Not only that, but Bernie Sanders is also more electable in the general election compared to Hillary according to current polls, winning against Trump and Cruz, whereas Hillary either isn't winning, or does so by a small margin. This is due to the large advantage Sanders has in winning over independents compared to Hillary.

If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, we might just have ourselves a race.

What does GL think about this most recent rise of Bernie? Until now I thought of his rise as awesome but ultimately unthreatening, but I'm beginning to realize he's a genuine threat.

I think I have to eat crow, still think Hillary will win, but it won't the coronation I thought it would be

Agree. I think she'll somehow pull away from Sanders enough to win, but goodness me this is some shocking stuff.

The thought of a Sanders-Trump showdown is quite frankly scary.

CBarca wrote:Well what do we have here?

The former 20 point lead Hillary had last month nationally has been cut to 7 or 8 points. Hillary is narrowly winning Iowa, and Sanders is winning New Hampshire (by a larger margin than Hillary is winning Iowa).

Not only that, but Bernie Sanders is also more electable in the general election compared to Hillary according to current polls, winning against Trump and Cruz, whereas Hillary either isn't winning, or does so by a small margin. This is due to the large advantage Sanders has in winning over independents compared to Hillary.

If Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, we might just have ourselves a race.

What does GL think about this most recent rise of Bernie? Until now I thought of his rise as awesome but ultimately unthreatening, but I'm beginning to realize he's a genuine threat.

Without bothering to follow the race more closely this year I'd still firmly say Sanders is not a threat to Hillary no matter how good he might or might not be polling at the moment.

Even if wins Iowa and New Hampshire, that doesn't mean much - Iowa are caucus and as such always more winnable and affine to base favourite candidates, and if a candidate from New England doesn't win in New England he can go home anyway.

I'd absolutely love Sanders to trump Hillary of course, and the American people have shown a good taste in candidates before with Obama over Hillary, but I don't believe for a second he'll be really coming close.

Ben Carson asking where divisiveness came from in America, saying, "It didn't come from our Judeo-Christian roots I can tell you that much."

Don't know whether to laugh or cry.

He's right Obama isn't judeo-Christian

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9790764/partisan-discrimination

(Ok there was a trend before 2008 but LOL @ the change from 2008-2010)

Curious Hans, you explain that you don't see Sanders being a threat to Hillary, but don't explain why. Why not?

Sanders, to win the primary, is going to have to beat Hillary with minority voters and I don't see that happening.

He has made an impressive showing so far though.

Also Cruz got Wrecked by Donald Trump and 9/11 last night. Dude looked like he wanted to die

https://twitter.com/dorseyshaw/status/689565899787997184

Betty La Fea wrote:Sanders, to win the primary, is going to have to beat Hillary with minority voters and I don't see that happening.

He has made an impressive showing so far though.

Also Cruz got Wrecked by Donald Trump and 9/11 last night. Dude looked like he wanted to die

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I think I have to eat crow, still think Hillary will win, but it won't the coronation I thought it would be

After reading some more on the subject, I take this back. NH and Iowa are two of the whitest states in America, exactly where Sanders is strong. If Sanders can't win these states then he doesn't have a chance at all, and even if he does it's still Hillary's to lose.

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2FHilberniestarkdifference.jpg

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/sep/02/11-examples-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-hol/

Bernie Sanders is 74-years-old, I think that's a bit old to become the president of the U.S. Does anyone know who's been the oldest person to become the president of the U.S.?

Art Morte wrote:Bernie Sanders is 74-years-old, I think that's a bit old to become the president of the U.S. Does anyone know who's been the oldest person to become the president of the U.S.?

Reagan at 70. His presidency was also a disaster as he started to show signs of dementia/early onset alzheimers during it.

Republican strategist just called trump fans single men who masturbate to anime


This is why America is so awesome. He straight out called these people out. Japanese politicians/media ignore them to a point where they allow them to lower the quality of life everywhere.

Betty La Fea wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Bernie Sanders is 74-years-old, I think that's a bit old to become the president of the U.S. Does anyone know who's been the oldest person to become the president of the U.S.?

Reagan at 70. His presidency was also a disaster as he started to show signs of dementia/early onset alzheimers during it.

Right. Yeah, I wouldn't be totally comfortable with the idea of a 70+ years-old president if I was a U.S. citizen. And being the president is a very, very hands-on role in the USA, too.

Hillary is 69 and Trump 68, too.

Art Morte wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Bernie Sanders is 74-years-old, I think that's a bit old to become the president of the U.S. Does anyone know who's been the oldest person to become the president of the U.S.?

Reagan at 70. His presidency was also a disaster as he started to show signs of dementia/early onset alzheimers during it.

Right. Yeah, I wouldn't be totally comfortable with the idea of a 70+ years-old president if I was a U.S. citizen. And being the president is a very, very hands-on role in the USA, too.

Hillary is 69 and Trump 68, too.

I think Hillary is a much younger 70 than reagan was though. She has been in DC taken care of by the best doctors the world has for the past 20+ years. She was a kept woman compared to reagan, a person living the fast lane as an actor until he took office in california shortly before becoming president. Your lifestyle plays a big factor in it.

Former President Jimmy carter is nearly 100, just beat Brain Cancer, and still has all of his wits.

Sure, but would you rather a 74 year old who actually gives a crap and is authentic, or...Ted Cruz?

I feel as though Bernie would only go one term too...and that's manageable for someone of that age. Two, yes that's worrying but I think Bernie would be a one term president and that would also help with his ability to at least try and get stuff done (like Obama right now) than what Obama's first 4 years looked like.

CBarca wrote:Sure, but would you rather a 74 year old who actually gives a crap and is authentic, or...Ted Cruz?

I feel as though Bernie would only go one term too...and that's manageable for someone of that age. Two, yes that's worrying but I think Bernie would be a one term president and that would also help with his ability to at least try and get stuff done (like Obama right now) than what Obama's first 4 years looked like.

Would it really be manageable? Remember how young Bush jr and Obama looked when they came into office? The job ages you a good 10 years. Bernie won't win the primary, but even if he did I would be nervous having supreme court nominations in his hand betting for another 8 years.

CBarca wrote:Sure, but would you rather a 74 year old who actually gives a crap and is authentic, or...Ted Cruz?

I feel as though Bernie would only go one term too...and that's manageable for someone of that age. Two, yes that's worrying but I think Bernie would be a one term president and that would also help with his ability to at least try and get stuff done (like Obama right now) than what Obama's first 4 years looked like.

Mm, but I think you need to keep the age & health question apart from everything else. They're independent packages.

The U.S. president needs quite a bit of energy, he's so involved in everything. Domestic politics, foreign politics, representing, addressing contemporary events, travelling. Both that domestic and global leadership that is required of the U.S. president, it might be a bit much for a 70+ year-old person. I just don't think anyone is in their "prime" when they're past their 70's.

Art Morte wrote:

CBarca wrote:Sure, but would you rather a 74 year old who actually gives a crap and is authentic, or...Ted Cruz?

I feel as though Bernie would only go one term too...and that's manageable for someone of that age. Two, yes that's worrying but I think Bernie would be a one term president and that would also help with his ability to at least try and get stuff done (like Obama right now) than what Obama's first 4 years looked like.

Mm, but I think you need to keep the age & health question apart from everything else. They're independent packages.

The U.S. president needs quite a bit of energy, he's so involved in everything. Domestic politics, foreign politics, representing, addressing contemporary events, travelling. Both that domestic and global leadership that is required of the U.S. president, it might be a bit much for a 70+ year-old person. I just don't think anyone is in their "prime" when they're past their 70's.

When do you think a person is in their prime?

I am only in my 20s, and I already feel a little sore getting up some days. Am I on the decline?

I mean sharpness of the mind and energy levels. When we look at people who've done great things - be it inventions, art, leadership, new ideologies, writing books or whatever - the majority of their greatest stuff they've done before their 60's or 70's.

Art Morte wrote:I mean sharpness of the mind and energy levels. When we look at people who've done great things - be it inventions, art, leadership, new ideologies, writing books or whatever - the majority of their greatest stuff they've done before their 60's or 70's.

Ah I see. Do you think most people do their best work when young? The way its structured in America at least is that you can't even be eligible for president until you are 35. So You spend your youth making a name for yourself in your field/making your millions, and then you start the life of public service.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I think I have to eat crow, still think Hillary will win, but it won't the coronation I thought it would be

After reading some more on the subject, I take this back. NH and Iowa are two of the whitest states in America, exactly where Sanders is strong. If Sanders can't win these states then he doesn't have a chance at all, and even if he does it's still Hillary's to lose.

Most of all, Vermont is practically the weird brother of New Hampshire.
Neighbor states, same demographics, same neck of the woods. They know Sanders as one of their own.

He should be landsliding New Hampshire if he was a serious contender.

He is, he has a 20+ point lead there