Re: US Presidential Race

by BarrileteCosmico Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:41 pm

He is, he has a 20+ point lead there

by Art Morte Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:43 pm

Betty La Fea wrote:
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.

I think most people do their best work before they turn 60, although it depends a bit on what they do. Politics is actually one field where age and experience can give you the sort of insight that's greatly beneficial to you, but somewhere there goes the line. Plus the role of the U.S. president is, like I've said, very hands-on and it requires a lot of energy to do it well, imo. It's not your standard politicians role. You've got to lead from the front in that one and that's the most consuming way to lead.

by Hapless_Hans Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:54 pm

BarrileteCosmico wrote:He is, he has a 20+ point lead there

Meh, 57% chance of winning according to the current 538 forecast. Not a landslide.

Look, I love Sanders. I'm amazed such an old man, self-proclaimed socialist, not even in the party, from Vermont, is doing so well.

It's like if Mike Gravel had done well back in 2008 Laughing

But I suspect part of why he's doing well is that noone else actually decided to run Laughing

They all apparently thought this time around REALLY Hillary can't be stopped Laughing

So he can unify all votes that are looking for a more left wing candidate than Hillary, which votes should be a sizeable chunk of the base in a primary contest since Hillary is establishment par excellence, and he's campaigning hard to actually mobilize those votes.

He's still never going to get near the nomination, and never was getting anywhere near it, at any second.

by FennecFox7 Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:13 am

The biggest deception the republicans have ever pulled is acting like they actually care about hard working people and the middle class. And making it look like corporations barely make a profit and need all the tax breaks they can get. whew.

by CBarca Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:32 am

Latest polls show Bernie above Hillary in Iowa now by 8 points. Trailed her by 9 just last month hmm

by CBarca Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:46 am

I do agree with you guys though, for the most part. I would be very surprised to see Bernie end up giving Hillary a real run. I think it could happen, but we'll see.

He has to win Iowa and New Hampshire as well as improve his popularity with black voters to have any real shot, as well as favorable coverage from the media post-winning of Iowa and New Hampshire, and this continuing surge.

So...a lot of ifs. But we'll see how it goes.

His popularity amongst blacks is ridiculous compared to Hillary. This was an issue months ago and it still hasn't been fixed Laughing

the dude is all about lowering incarceration rates, minor drug offenses, and fixing the economic issues that make life so difficult for many blacks in America, and he's getting destroyed by someone who's only encounter with a black person was likely Obama.

by Guest Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:22 am

CBarca wrote:I do agree with you guys though, for the most part. I would be very surprised to see Bernie end up giving Hillary a real run. I think it could happen, but we'll see.

He has to win Iowa and New Hampshire as well as improve his popularity with black voters to have any real shot, as well as favorable coverage from the media post-winning of Iowa and New Hampshire, and this continuing surge.

So...a lot of ifs. But we'll see how it goes.

His popularity amongst blacks is ridiculous compared to Hillary. This was an issue months ago and it still hasn't been fixed the dude is all about lowering incarceration rates, minor drug offenses, and fixing the economic issues that make life so difficult for many blacks in America, and he's getting destroyed by someone who's only encounter with a black person was likely Obama.

To be fair is there any proof Bernie Sanders had even seen a black person since the civil rights movement before those black lives matters girls hijacked his rally?

The clintons have been entrenched in the black community for decades now. Hell, when Bill left office he moved to the middle of a black part of Harlem, and that was the same office in which Hillary launched her senate and first presidential campaign. She has also been endorsed by living civil rights legends like John Louis. She has put in major work to get the minority vote, while sanders has pretty much been awol.

This is a bernie sanders rally in Birmingham this week. Birmingham is a majority black city, in a state where African Americans make up 85% of the democratic party electorate there, and look at his rally:

US Presidential Race - Page 16 XNAHK3z

I've seen more black folks at john birch society meeting Laughing

He came to my city of Atlanta, a place that was pretty much the headquarters of the civil rights movement, and got opened for by a third rate rapper Laughing

. He absolutely failed in that demographic.

by CBarca Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:55 pm

And I agree with you, as I said, this was an issue months ago and still hasn't been fixed. He needs their vote if he wants to win and he's absolutely been failing at getting it. My biggest issue with Bernie is his inability to articulate his points simply and effectively, he has many good stances on many issues that affect black lives directly and based on policy shouldn't be struggling as much as he is, but he's been an abject failure in being able to communicate those policies in a way that actually gets him the minority vote.

And that's my point, for someone with the stances he has on those issues, he shouldn't be getting destroyed by Hillary.

by Guest Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:30 pm

CBarca wrote:And I agree with you, as I said, this was an issue months ago and still hasn't been fixed. He needs their vote if he wants to win and he's absolutely been failing at getting it. My biggest issue with Bernie is his inability to articulate his points simply and effectively, he has many good stances on many issues that affect black lives directly and based on policy shouldn't be struggling as much as he is, but he's been an abject failure in being able to communicate those policies in a way that actually gets him the minority vote.

And that's my point, for someone with the stances he has on those issues, he shouldn't be getting destroyed by Hillary.

He gets caught up too easily i think. I think even a story recently came out about him not supporting reparations. He should not be giving any answer on that Laughing

by McLewis Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:12 pm

Bernie is that crazy uncle at the family gathering. He's very likable, makes sense in many ways, but I wouldn't trust him with responsibility of something like our nuclear codes. I think he's a great social justice candidate, but foreign policy is a big part of the job and I don't think he's up to snuff there.

by Hapless_Hans Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:32 pm

McLewis wrote:Bernie is that crazy uncle at the family gathering. He's very likable, makes sense in many ways, but I wouldn't trust him with responsibility of something like our nuclear codes. I think he's a great social justice candidate, but foreign policy is a big part of the job and I don't think he's up to snuff there.

That's nonsense though. If anything, he's the least likely to do any monkey business with atomic weapons lol.

"He's nice but would you trust him with the nuclear codes"?
This is the type of argument that is hammered into our brains day in day out, year in year out to make us exclude outsiders, non-establishment, non-'Realpolitik' candidates from our vote.

It's exactly the reason why someone like Sanders can't win - not because it's true that he'd be less trustworthy in foreign affairs, but because it's been succesfully and powerfully established insider candidates are the safe choice in matters of war and peace.

When of course the reality is the opposite:
Don't forget, Hillary voted for the Iraq war...

by Art Morte Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:01 pm

I don't know, Hans, why is Trump so popular if people don't want to vote for "outsiders"?

Speaking of outsiders, it's being reported that the former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering running as an independent candidate.

by Hapless_Hans Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:08 pm

Art Morte wrote:I don't know, Hans, why is Trump so popular if people don't want to vote for "outsiders"?

Speaking of outsiders, it's being reported that the former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering running as an independent candidate.

I was talking about center left politics.
Not just in the US, everywhere, the foreign policy safety argument is ubiquitous.

The right in the US has taken a turn to the gaga fascist extreme in the last years, that's a whole different story.
They operate in some contrafactual, non-intelligent life form bubble anyway.

by Art Morte Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:10 pm

I have no idea what you just said, so I won't continue the debate.

by RedOranje Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:39 pm

There can be little argument that Hillary isn't leagues ahead of Bernie Sanders in everything related to foreign relations and international politics. That's not necessarily a slight on Sanders, its simply a direct outcome of Hillary's greater experience in those areas and their differing agendas overall.

More to the point (and a more direct issue for Sanders, in my opinion) is the fact that no matter what Bernie says he wants to do, he still has to get Congress to agree with it in some way... and that just isn't something I see as reasonably possible given our current state of politics. Even with a shift back toward the left (which is far from guaranteed) many of Sanders' policies would still be far too leftist for the vast majority of both the Senate and House.

by footyfan01 Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:18 am

Bernie is IMO the only chance Democrats have. Hillary has no chance. She has nowhere near the charisma, likability,oratory power, ability to connect or even fake that Bill had. Plus she has too much baggage, the email things & as well the Clinton foundation donation thing are only gonna get nastier - She has way too much baggage !!!

She is doing horribly with young votes - like 1 for every 3 odd voters for Bernie. She has 0 Cross-over appeal - Everyone dislikes her. Reason Bernie is doing well - Independents are the biggest block in the US - close to 40% and they mostly don't support Hillary.

Plus a low voter turnout is a death-knell for the Democrats - The progressive wing, the liberal side of the Democrats will be very less enthusiastic about voting for Hillary. Let's face it her record on everything from Climate Change(support of Keystone), LGBT rights(opposed DOMA, opposed same sex marriage in 08), Iraq war, her opposition to abortion initially.

On the other hand Bernie Sanders is the most progressive with a 100% voting record on any of these issues. There is a deep resentment under-current for Hillary. Look at her speak - She will NEVER make eye contact, beat around the bush, never take a stand.

With Bernie, I'm not sure about the blacks but the Democratic party finally has a chance to connect back to the white men who left the party, have a huge bond with the young people and have a 50 State strategy. There is a chance that Democrats take back the Senate, the house, the Governor positions -> the Democratic party & the country has moved a shade left & progressive & it's clear Hillary Clinton is a dinosaur, she just doesn't fit in this anymore.

by footyfan01 Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:30 am

Hapless_Hans wrote:
BarrileteCosmico wrote:He is, he has a 20+ point lead there

Meh, 57% chance of winning according to the current 538 forecast. Not a landslide.

Look, I love Sanders. I'm amazed such an old man, self-proclaimed socialist, not even in the party, from Vermont, is doing so well.

It's like if Mike Gravel had done well back in 2008

But I suspect part of why he's doing well is that noone else actually decided to run
They all apparently thought this time around REALLY Hillary can't be stopped

So he can unify all votes that are looking for a more left wing candidate than Hillary, which votes should be a sizeable chunk of the base in a primary contest since Hillary is establishment par excellence, and he's campaigning hard to actually mobilize those votes.

He's still never going to get near the nomination, and never was getting anywhere near it, at any second.

I see no reason why he SHOULD win NH just because he is from Vermont, whose Democratic establishment is supporting Hillary. The entire establishment is with her - Bill was a hugely popular President. The executive bodies of Planned Parenthood, HRC (who don't allow members voting) have pledged their support behind Hillary. She is playing the "women" card. The DNC is rigged, Debbie was on Hillary's campaign and is a 100% Hillary fan - they put 6 Debates on Saturdays where you have NFL games!

And she has endless money. Sanders has like 10 minute coverage while Trump/Hillary has 240-250 Minute coverage from the media. Sanders is considered a fringe candidate by the media. Bill Clinton was a fantastic President for the black community and Hillary is looked positively & they have thrown their weight behind Hillary.

Sanders has like 0-1 Senator, Congress people endorsement while Hillary has the entire party. Sanders is a freaking INDEPENDENT & declares openly that he is a SOCIALIST. And Clinton has billions of $ from big donors. She started way early - basically 8 years back lol!!!!

In 2007, the Iraq war was fresh, not now. Obama was black & had much more establishment support that Sanders does!!!

Has it ever happened without any money, establishment support, you have this kind of a campaign?

by DuringTheWar Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:26 pm

Economic conservatives outnumber economic liberals 2 to 1 in America, or maybe even by a bit more than that. How is that realistically going to work out well for the democrats if they choose sanders?

by Hapless_Hans Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:31 pm

DuringTheWar wrote:Economic conservatives outnumber economic liberals 2 to 1 in America, or maybe even by a bit more than that. How is that realistically going to work out well for the democrats if they choose sanders?

Meh these are just labels.

It's like when you asked Americans in a poll about Obama's health care reform, they were against it if it was phrased as "government option", and for it if it was called "public option".

by DuringTheWar Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:49 pm

Hapless_Hans wrote:
DuringTheWar wrote:Economic conservatives outnumber economic liberals 2 to 1 in America, or maybe even by a bit more than that. How is that realistically going to work out well for the democrats if they choose sanders?

Meh these are just labels.

It's like when you asked Americans in a poll about Obama's health care reform, they were against it if it was phrased as "government option", and for it if it was called "public option".

So how exactly could this be rephrased?

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/i6qkgblnbeik8xzzpucirq.png&imgrefurl=http://www.gallup.com/poll/183386/social-ideology-left-catches-right.aspx&h=318&w=504&tbnid=06D0ErjGQcvfvM:&docid=Cs1UzbUMIvvI9M&hl=en-gb&ei=DsikVrbfFIarU9amrugB&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0ahUKEwi2nvPsvcLKAhWG1RQKHVaTCx0QMwgcKAAwAA

by footyfan01 Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:59 pm

DuringTheWar wrote:Economic conservatives outnumber economic liberals 2 to 1 in America, or maybe even by a bit more than that. How is that realistically going to work out well for the democrats if they choose sanders?

Sanders is beating Trump by around 20 points in polls, and by a big margin of other GOP candidates. Ofcourse polls don't matter much but the people don't vote on 1 issue only. It is not a referendum.

For ex - 90% of Blacks will go with Dems regardless of economic thinking. With the current GOP field, they have lost 90% of the Hispanic vote, same for most other immigrant/Muslim vote.

The GOP says Climate Change is a hoax, they are against homosexuals, against abortion rights for women, etc. So any big celeb, say who MUST have gay friends or someone who has worked for GREEN Energy, given contributions to solar energy and other causes will not vote GOP. They will vote dem or abstain depending on the candidate.

You have lost people who are passionate about clean energy, LGBT, Human Rights activities in addition to blacks & Hispanics. With their religious dogma, atheists will NEVER vote for them. Millennials are majorly against the reps as polls show.

With alienating so many people, you can only win if you have a scandalized candidate with no cross over appeal like Hillary Clinton who will enthuse voters causing a low voter turnout. Even then with Trump or Cruz, it is difficult to win.

GOP needs a very low turnout like in mid term elections where they win. You can't alienate 40% of the votebase (include economically liberals) and expect to win. This is a golden chance for Dems to sweep the elections.

by Hapless_Hans Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:42 pm

DuringTheWar wrote:
Hapless_Hans wrote:
DuringTheWar wrote:Economic conservatives outnumber economic liberals 2 to 1 in America, or maybe even by a bit more than that. How is that realistically going to work out well for the democrats if they choose sanders?

Meh these are just labels.

It's like when you asked Americans in a poll about Obama's health care reform, they were against it if it was phrased as "government option", and for it if it was called "public option".

So how exactly could this be rephrased?

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/i6qkgblnbeik8xzzpucirq.png&imgrefurl=http://www.gallup.com/poll/183386/social-ideology-left-catches-right.aspx&h=318&w=504&tbnid=06D0ErjGQcvfvM:&docid=Cs1UzbUMIvvI9M&hl=en-gb&ei=DsikVrbfFIarU9amrugB&tbm=isch&client=safari&ved=0ahUKEwi2nvPsvcLKAhWG1RQKHVaTCx0QMwgcKAAwAA

It's all PR and messaging.

Or are you really going to tell me that Bush Jr's time in office actually was 'economically conservative', or even better, 'fiscally conservative' lol?

Everyone claims to be a 'fiscal conservative' in the US, that's etiquette.
Just like noone would ever NOT 'support the troops'.

In the end, in reality these are the guys who ruin the budget with uncovered, immensely wasteful military spending infused with cronyism (Cheney and Halliburton etc), while sending soldiers to death in a conflict that has no upside whatsoever, except for aforementioned cronies.

You don't see accountability for that. Accountability being another 'conservative' buzzword.

These people continue to go around and claim to be conservative, small government, what have you.

Polls like this mean *bleep* all in actual policy substance.

by footyfan01 Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:49 pm

Hapless_Hans wrote:
DuringTheWar wrote:
Hapless_Hans wrote:

Meh these are just labels.

It's like when you asked Americans in a poll about Obama's health care reform, they were against it if it was phrased as "government option", and for it if it was called "public option".

So how exactly could this be rephrased?

It's all PR and messaging.

Or are you really going to tell me that Bush Jr's time in office actually was 'economically conservative', or even better, 'fiscally conservative' lol?

Everyone claims to be a 'fiscal conservative' in the US, that's etiquette.
Just like noone would ever NOT 'support the troops'.

In the end, in reality these are the guys who ruin the budget with uncovered, immensely wasteful military spending infused with cronyism (Cheney and Halliburton etc), while sending soldiers to death in a conflict that has no upside whatsoever, except for aforementioned cronies.

You don't see *bleep* for that. Accountability being another 'conservative' buzzword.

George H.W. Bush left US with a very high deficit which Clinton turned to a surplus. George Bush then turned it into a VERY high deficit and an economy in recession.

With the the gigantic tax cuts promised by republicans (around 15% flat tax) & love for getting involved in a war(very costly), I don't see how a republican President will be "fiscally" conservative, ofcourse the definition of conservative now probably means to cut down on social security, healthcare, veterans-care, etc.

by footyfan01 Sun Jan 24, 2016 4:38 pm

CBS Poll -

Iowa -
Sanders - 47%
Clinton - 46%
O Malley - 5%

New Hampshire -
Sanders - 57%
Clinton - 38%
O Malley - 5%

Nevada - No Polls

South Carolina -
Sanders - 38%
Clinton - 60%
O Malley - 0%

Neck & Neck in Iowa (Polls range from Sanders +10 lead to Clinton +10 lead). Gonna be neck & neck. Sanders looks heading for a landslide victory in NH.

South Carolina - 60% Clinton to 38% Sanders. Lead has come down from 40%+ lead. But sizeable lead among a very large black population among democrats.

If Sanders win the 2 early states Iowa & NH leading into the 5th Democratic debate, it will get tough for Clinton. South Carolina is more than 1 month away & there is plenty of tough for the polls to tighten up.

Last Poll -
Iowa -
Hillary - 50% (Swing of -4%)
Sanders - 45%(+2%)
Total Swing = +6%

NH -
Sanders - 56% (+1)
Hillary - 42%(+4)
Total Swing - +5

SC -
Sanders - 31% (+7%)
Hillary - 67% (-7%)
Total Swing - 14%

African Americans in SC - Hillary 76% to Sanders 22% (only +5% swing for Sanders)
Whites in SC - Sanders 60% to Hillary 38%

Without the black votes, Hillary is toast. Anyways, 36% gap to 22% gap in 1 month is a big improvement for Sanders (still don't see him winning SC, hopefully gives a closer fight). Sanders needs to draw 35-40% of the black votes for a very strong challenge(he does not have to win it).

Nevada would be fun to watch. 5th Debate after Iowa, NH results to come before Nevada (3rd poll). Nevada has huge white & significant hispanic population. I am predicting breach of Hillary's Latino firewall & an equitable split of Latino votes. It will break & Nevada will be close (provided Sanders wins Iowa & NH.)

by Guest Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:54 pm

Sanders doesn't stand a chance in splitting Hillarys vote. Especially when he has hardly acknowledged them, and how his socialist far left leanings will not do well with their large/borderline evangelical leanings in the south west.

He really stands no chance once we move past these first few heavily white states.

by footyfan01 Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:20 am

Betty La Fea wrote:Sanders doesn't stand a chance in splitting Hillarys vote. Especially when he has hardly acknowledged them, and how his socialist far left leanings will not do well with their large/borderline evangelical leanings in the south west.

He really stands no chance once we move past these first few heavily white states.

The socialist tag is not much of an issue among democrats , the republicans call them left, socialists for years and medicare, social security, etc have a tinge of socialism in them.

Sanders has already got the votes of people for whom socialism should be an issue - White men, independents, etc. It's much lesser of an issue among blacks.

Polls from Alaska came where gop wins, Sanders is leading Clinton by a huge margin. He is doing well in g̱op states, getting independent, heck even getting some trump votes.

He is winning head ṭo head by a landslide against the g̱op, the voters dont vote for 1 issue.

Key think would be black votes. 20-25% is too low to win - he needs Iowa,NH and needs close to 40% of the black votes o challenge. That will be KEY

BTW he does not need to split the entire votes, he only needs a bit more black votes, he is enlarg̱ing the pie with huge turnaround, young voters and independents....

by Sponsored content