Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by onejayhawk, Mar 23, 2016.
I'm fairly sure that's the point of a quotation, especially when used to highlight something.
I was right then. :1st:
I'm not actually sure this is true. The demographic where she is getting killed the most right now is with young voters and those who identify as Progressives. She'll still win that group, but if their turnout lags (say, dips significantly behind 2008 levels), she could lose a few midwestern states. Adding somebody like a Cory Booker may help cover her left flank and get some enthusiasm again.
On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter that much. Unless Clinton gets indicted, I don't think there is any data-driven reason to think she won't kill Donald Trump. Trump hasn't been able to expand his support much beyond his initial coalition, and his unfavorables are the highest in modern US history (yes, MUCH higher than Clinton's). Polling also suggests he's alienated so Republican groups so badly that he might lose some rock solid red states, like Utah.
There is no way in Hell he'd take Cruz. The only person who ran for President who could be a Trump VP, IMO, is Huckabee. I bet he'd ask Rick Scott to do it.
I think the most likely running mate for Donald Drumpf is Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions.
Drumpf has stated that he would probably choose someone who is more of an insider in Washington who could help him work with Congress.
A governor, especially a former governor who has not help elective office for years, would not be as much of an insider as a senator. Also Drumpf would view his executive experience in business equivalent to executive experience in government, and think he needs a legislator to balance him.
Drumpf has attacked Cruz too much too recently for him to be a top pick, but his main weakness is the fact that he is so unpopular with other senators.
Sessions was the first Senator to endorse Drumpf, and has been campaigning strongly for him (even wearing the hat). Before that, Sessions was one of the loudest voices calling for building a Wall along the Mexican border.
Sessions has the reputation for conservatism to help Drumpf with many of the Republicans who might not be enthusiastic to support Drumpf, while still appealing to his base. Sessions is very popular in the South and would certainly be replaced by another Republican senator rather than giving the democrats a chance to gain his seat.
Sessions has already been named as the chairman of Trump's national security advisory committee.
Canadian living in the USA checking in.
No idea. Trump versus Hillary. No idea. Hillary is both unelectable and unbeatable. Trump is such a wild card.
In my country, Trump is what I would call a protest vote. A lot of his votes will come from people who are neither Republican nor Democrat, but very upset with the "politics as usual" that goes on in Washington. They are so angry, they will vote for Trump. This is as good as showing up at the Capitol with torches and pitchforks.
I also compare Trump to the Incredible Hulk of political candidates. Anything that would kill a normal man only makes the Incredible Hulk bigger and angrier and meaner and greener. Anything that would kill a normal campaign makes the Trump campaign bigger and angrier and meaner and greener.
What I don't like about the Trump campaign is the constant appeals to demagoguery. What is truly scary is that it seems to work. I wish he would stick to a positive message, such as his campaign slogan.
Another interesting impression I have:
People on the right will vote for Trump.
People on the right will hold their noses and vote for Trump.
People on the right will stay home.
People on the right will hold their noses and vote for Hillary.
I do not believe it works quite the same way on the left. Most likely only the first three on the list apply.
So overall, I really have no idea who will win in a battle of unelectable candidates. However, I will give the edge to Hillary.
Here is my take on both Trump and Clinton:
- nationalist/populist, mixing leftist and rightist policies to appeal to what voters want to hear.
Isn't someone who's corrupt by definition also dishonest?
Hillary's dishonesty extends to areas other than her corruption
Although I am always wondering what people are talking about when they say she is corrupt. Is it about the Wall Street money thing? The word is so unspecific.
true. I separated the two because by "corrupt", I meant things like taking questionable money (goldman sachs) and by "dishonest", I meant saying things that she does not really mean or that are not true. So, slightly different sides of the same coin.
If he gets the nomination Trump is going to have to reach outside the party for a running mate...at least outside the actual people with political careers. No one who ever intends to get elected to anything in the future can afford to go down with that ship.
If Carly Fiorina can stump for Cruz without getting too involved in direct Trump bashing she's probably his best available choice.
Without trying to be too cynical, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many prominent politicians who do not meet that definition.
Without trying to be too cynical, since politicians are drawn from the larger pool humanity I am absolutely sure that they are mostly going to meet that definition.
Honestly, one of my bigger fears is that Clinton is going to reach out to Elizabeth Warren, and ruin Warren's brandname. I'd really like to see her in 2020 or 2024.
Ruin her brand name? Eight years of taking credit for everything that works while ducking responsibility for anything that fails...how does that ruin anything?
Less condescendingly, she needs a male VP. I think American voters in general are ready for a female President but two women on the ticket might lend credence to attacks that play that angle.
Also I think Warren's reason to not run was to dissociate herself from Clinton both as an enemy and as an ally.
True but some politicians are worse than others.
Warren is 66 now and will be 67 by election time. If Clinton wins this election, Warren won't have a chance until the 2024 election, by which time she'll be 75. It's not impossible that she could still run then, but this was definitely her best chance. It's too bad - I would have preferred her over Sanders.
I'm still holding onto the hope that Clinton gets indicted for espionage with maybe tax evasion or money laundering thrown in for good measure. Right after she sweeps the convention and every other Democrat bows and scrapes and proclaims how unworthy they are and that She is the Chosen One.
Of course the Republicans would be too stupid to seize that opportunity.
[I'm a libertarian-leaning conservative. I caucus with the Republicans]
Tax evasion or money laundering? Well, I suppose that if you've exhausted all the vaguely legitimate options, you might as well go on to the fantastical ones.
You're hoping Clinton gets indicted for tax evasion while running against someone who is currently refusing to release his tax returns, with the justification that there is an ongoing IRS investigation against him?
Separate names with a comma.