US Presidential Race

I wonder how realistic Trump is about his chances himself. There's no way he can become the president, I don't believe that. What's his plan after the election? He came out of nowhere, is he going to go back to nowhere? Or is he planning a late career in politics? He is what he is, but he's not stupid. Has he got a plan or is it a case of "just having a helluva time of it"?

We can't rule him as much as we'd like to. Most (me included) never thought he had a real chance at running, then at winning the candidacy for republicans. Now its all happening.

Trump winning the Republican candidacy isn't necessarily a sign of him being that popular, it could be more to do with the Republican party failing to provide other convincing candidates. Personally I'm equally surprised that Cruz is the 2nd choice. I would never have thought that a guy like him is gathering the 2nd most Republican votes. I think that the Republican candidate quality is just really low + Trump has given the clear choice for everyone who is anti-immigration. But when you look at the Republican field, it just was very weak to begin with.

But who are the other choices? Bernie alienates a lot of people with how leftist he is. He is basically a left wing Cruz. Hillary is center so she is the favorite but she still puts off a lot of people. I hope he has no chance. I'm just not sure anymore.

The candidate quality is overall poor, yeah, but among Republicans it's especially poor.

rincon wrote:But who are the other choices? Bernie alienates a lot of people with how leftist he is. He is basically a left wing Cruz. Hillary is center so she is the favorite but she still puts off a lot of people. I hope he has no chance. I'm just not sure anymore.

Ehh not sure I would say Bernie is the left wing equivalent to Cruz personally. Unlike Cruz, Bernie's actually well respected in the Senate and has been for decades. He's got better relationships with members of his own party as well as the GOP than perhaps is politically expedient for him to admit. Cruz literally has no allies in the Senate as he's alienated them all. He's also proven that he may very well be completely unwilling to work across the aisle on major issues. I think if push comes to shove, Bernie may just be more amenable than he's let on. Just not Hillary-level amenable.

Art Morte wrote:Trump winning the Republican candidacy isn't necessarily a sign of him being that popular, it could be more to do with the Republican party failing to provide other convincing candidates. Personally I'm equally surprised that Cruz is the 2nd choice. I would never have thought that a guy like him is gathering the 2nd most Republican votes. I think that the Republican candidate quality is just really low + Trump has given the clear choice for everyone who is anti-immigration. But when you look at the Republican field, it just was very weak to begin with.

The fact that Cruz is second goes a long way to showing how weak this field is (if Trump being first wasn't convincing enough). Cruz isn't even liked among Republicans either.

However, it's equal parts a testament to how crazy this election cycle is and how historic it is in terms of populist appeal and anti-establishment sentiment. Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio would all be decently appealing candidates in an election where Republicans preferred establishment candidates--the likes of Cruz, Carson and Trump would be laughed off the stage. Scott Walker around the time he started cracking open and gutting Wisconsin of everything that makes it good was considered the rising star of the establishment Republican party. When he announced I was scared for the country, because I thought he had a chance.

Perhaps I was just foolish, and apparently so considering how early he dropped out ( ) but it does say a lot about this election cycle. The Republican candidates are weak partially because they just are and partially because all of the decent candidates they had were destroyed by the electorate, preferring crazies like Trump and Cruz.

Really illustrates how messed up the Republican primary electorate is. I hope for their sake that the general election electorate is much different. Regardless, I hope they enjoy Hillary for the next x years.

rincon wrote:But who are the other choices? Bernie alienates a lot of people with how leftist he is. He is basically a left wing Cruz. Hillary is center so she is the favorite but she still puts off a lot of people. I hope he has no chance. I'm just not sure anymore.

No way man. There's a whole subreddit of republicans for Bernie because of how much the GOP hates Clinton.

Don't even worry. I'm not the biggest fan of Clinton but in an actual presidential debate, she will wipe the floor clean with trump. Like, the buttrape trump will experience will be bad. Say what you want about her but she can debate pretty damn well

rincon wrote:But who are the other choices? Bernie alienates a lot of people with how leftist he is. He is basically a left wing Cruz. Hillary is center so she is the favorite but she still puts off a lot of people. I hope he has no chance. I'm just not sure anymore.

Look at the demographics of America. A candidate like Trump has no chance of winning a general election where women,minorities, and moderates play a hand in voting. His rhetoric only works in a homogeneous primary with angry, mostly white, voters. That is the same reason Sanders has found success in less diverse states during the primary. The primary voting block is mostly different once you get outside a select few states. Trump is unelectable, which is why they will put an end to him at the convention.

Luckily the democrats have super delegates so a candidate like Trump on the left would never been in a position to win.

Super delegates are awful

A trump on the left or a trump on the right won't win a US election anyway. Just take a look at the US electorate and our political system (you point this out correctly).

You might get an FDR here or there (like Bernie) but that's as far as it goes. Maybe during a time of extreme crisis, but that's all I can think of.

CBarca wrote:Super delegates are awful

A trump on the left or a trump on the right won't win a US election anyway. Just take a look at the US electorate and our political system (you point this out correctly).

You might get an FDR here or there (like Bernie) but that's as far as it goes. Maybe during a time of extreme crisis, but that's all I can think of.

Whats not to like about super delegates? They are there as checks and balances.Stops another McGovern from happening and having an unelectable candidate near the front. The republicans wish they had super delegates right now. Trump is dragging them to the gutter.

What's not to like? What about the fact that it's simply not democratic?

The Republicans have been dragging themselves to the gutter for a long time now. The fact that their best opponent to Trump is Ted Cruz is all you need to know.

As for super delegates, BC has it very simply nailed on the head. I'm really not sure there is an elaboration that you need past that.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:What's not to like? What about the fact that it's simply not democratic?

Why would that be a negative? Most organizations are not.

The party has to make sure it protects itself, especially with the way the primaries are set up. When I voted do you know you can select whatever party you want before voting? People could all sign up democrat, put up an absolutely unelectable guy(Like McGovern) and screw the party. The super delegates are there to act as a balance. They also are only a small part of it too. The people still have most of the say. They are about as democratic as the rest of the nation.

CBarca wrote:The Republicans have been dragging themselves to the gutter for a long time now. The fact that their best opponent to Trump is Ted Cruz is all you need to know.

As for super delegates, BC has it very simply nailed on the head. I'm really not sure there is an elaboration that you need past that.

The gutter because they don't have super delegates to handle their fringe elements.With super delegates they wouldnt have to wait until convention to try to screw trump out of it.

Betty La Fea wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:What's not to like? What about the fact that it's simply not democratic?

Why would that be a negative? Most organizations are not.

The party has to make sure it protects itself, especially with the way the primaries are set up. When I voted do you know you can select whatever party you want before voting? People could all sign up democrat, put up an absolutely unelectable guy(Like McGovern) and screw the party. The super delegates are there to act as a balance. They also are only a small part of it too. The people still have most of the say. They are about as democratic as the rest of the nation.

Because democratic parties are not like most organizations, they are part of the democratic process. It's unjustifiable that the most voted person could not make it to the ballot simply because the establishment decided otherwise, be it Trump or Sanders. Just one more example of how the US is quite an undemocratic place, imo.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:What's not to like? What about the fact that it's simply not democratic?

Why would that be a negative? Most organizations are not.

The party has to make sure it protects itself, especially with the way the primaries are set up. When I voted do you know you can select whatever party you want before voting? People could all sign up democrat, put up an absolutely unelectable guy(Like McGovern) and screw the party. The super delegates are there to act as a balance. They also are only a small part of it too. The people still have most of the say. They are about as democratic as the rest of the nation.

Because democratic parties are not like most organizations, they are part of the democratic process. It's unjustifiable that the most voted person could not make it to the ballot simply because the establishment decided otherwise, be it Trump or Sanders. Just one more example of how the US is quite an undemocratic place, imo.

The people are free to make their own party and put up their own candidate at any time if they feel the democratic or republican primary is unfair. The democratic party has to have some kind of balance to make sure they are putting up electable people don't ya think?

Why should the party elite make a decision on electibility more than their own supporters? It is ridiculously paternalistic to assume they know better, and even if they did, it's still undemocratic violating the key concept of 1 person = 1 vote.

And no you can't go ahead and make your own party because the american system and media are stacked against any third party. So that is simply not a viable option.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Why should the party elite make a decision on electibility more than their own supporters? It is ridiculously paternalistic to assume they know better, and even if they did, it's still undemocratic violating the key concept of 1 person = 1 vote.

And no you can't go ahead and make your own party because the american system and media are stacked against any third party. So that is simply not a viable option.

They should make decisions because they are an organization which have to look out for their best interest. Their business is to win, and the super delegates are there to make sure somebody is put out that can get it done. Every organization has leadership.

People are certainly free to start their own political party. Of course its not viable. Whats also not viable is letting fringe primary elements decide your national campaign. Thats why the super delegates are there. We are on a side that will never have to deal with a demagogue like trump being in such a position for that reason. It has to be repeated. Candidates who can't win a general election should be kept far away. Trump is killing their party. Bernie in a general would be much the same for the democrats. One side is smart enough to make sure it won't happen, while one side isn't. I know it might seem sucky to have to accept a super delegate system, but on our side they really are a force of good. They also are savvy enough to know when a candidate becomes electable, as shown when they switched over from Hillary to Barack 8 years ago.

Agreed with BC, super delegates are undemocratic and stupid. Up there with lobbying and how accepted it is in the U.S. Well, lobbying is even worse, but both distort the will of the people, i.e. democracy.

Art Morte wrote:Agreed with BC, super delegates are undemocratic and stupid. Up there with lobbying and how accepted it is in the U.S. Well, lobbying is even worse, but both distort the will of the people, i.e. democracy.

Are you able to vote on who is president of the company you work for? The School you went to? The democratic party is an organization just like those. Also the will of the people happens in most cases. Obama was the more popular and electable choice in 08, and the super delegates went to him. Same will happen this year with Hillary. The will of the people is never in doubt.

A democratic party shouldn't be like the school or company. The way the system is setup it is extremelly difficult for a third party to run with a realistic chance of victory. If more parties were in the mix and had a chance of being successful then it'd be ok. But thats not the case with the current system.

If the people are pushed to choose from just 2 parties then those have to worry less about self-survival and more about the people's will. Otherwise you get a distortion of democracy. You can say that they are private organizations and can do whatever they want, but then you also can't argue that election process is truly democratic. With a bypartisan system its one or the other, not both.

Why are super delegates assigned from the start? I know they can change, but it has a significant impact on the people's perception of a candidate if the establishment is already behind one. Sanders' run has felt like even more of an uphill battle when Hillary starts with 10% of the votes on her side. That is literally swaying the election. There is no other reason for pledging super delegates before the convention other than manipulating the election to your side.

Betty La Fea wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Agreed with BC, super delegates are undemocratic and stupid. Up there with lobbying and how accepted it is in the U.S. Well, lobbying is even worse, but both distort the will of the people, i.e. democracy.

Are you able to vote on who is president of the company you work for? The School you went to? The democratic party is an organization just like those. Also the will of the people happens in most cases. Obama was the more popular and electable choice in 08, and the super delegates went to him. Same will happen this year with Hillary. The will of the people is never in doubt.

It amazes me how you could even compare a democratic party to a school principal. How are these similar at all? Clearly you have a very undemocratic view of how a democracy should work.

Pedram wrote:Hillary is very lucky she's facing a bunch of nutcases, if Republican party could elect a moderate like Kasich i could see her losing and the and the recent polls shows it's possible. the problem with Hillary is that she's not a charismatic candidate like Obama and her supporters aren't as enthusiastic as Sanders supporters.

Her non enthusiastic supporters have her with lead over Sanders in popular vote by nearly 3 million. The internet skews perception.

rincon wrote:A democratic party shouldn't be like the school or company. The way the system is setup it is extremelly difficult for a third party to run with a realistic chance of victory. If more parties were in the mix and had a chance of being successful then it'd be ok. But thats not the case with the current system.

If the people are pushed to choose from just 2 parties then those have to worry less about self-survival and more about the people's will. Otherwise you get a distortion of democracy. You can say that they are private organizations and can do whatever they want, but then you also can't argue that election process is truly democratic. With a bypartisan system its one or the other, not both.

Why are super delegates assigned from the start? I know they can change, but it has a significant impact on the people's perception of a candidate if the establishment is already behind one. Sanders' run has felt like even more of an uphill battle when Hillary starts with 10% of the votes on her side. That is literally swaying the election. There is no other reason for pledging super delegates before the convention other than manipulating the election to your side.

The thing about America is if you are unhappy with the way the organization is run, you are free to start your own. Would it be hard? Yes, but if the popularity is there then surely it can be done.

Uphill battle for Sanders you say? I mean, you make it seem like Bernie Sanders just recently joined the party after making a career running against them...oh wait, that is the case isn't it? Hillary has those super delegates because she has been a member of the democratic party for DECADES. She has raised money for them for DECADES. She has campaigned for their candidates for DECADES. You are not in reality if you don't think that stands for something, especially against a guy who has ran against and beat democrats. The fact he had a single super delegate is proof of their usefulness in judgement.