#9 is iffy. You have two scandals that taint this administration--Benghazi and the email server. Neither is really big, but both attach to the candidate. You cannot count that as an election positive.
In case you missed it, six (6) congressional and one (1) independent investigations on Benghazi have not turned up any evidence of wrongdoing on Hillary's part.
No documents marked "classified" were received or sent over the private email server.
You're going to need something much juicier than these.
In case you missed it, six (6) congressional and one (1) independent investigations on Benghazi have not turned up any evidence of wrongdoing on Hillary's part.
No documents marked "classified" were received or sent over the private email server.
You're going to need something much juicier than these.
You don't see an outside party aka Greens, Libertarians or Constitutionalists having any influence in the election?
Also what are your predictions for say N.Africa, Asia, Europe...especially interested in your prediction on say Germany, France, Greece, Sweden and how this whole islamic immigration thing might change Europe?
attacks are happening but Europe is still very much alike or left and tolerant...UKIP, Le Pen and the Austrian right have still lost out, they got stronger but they still did not make the gains predicted.
I could see a nice Green party outcome, but they have no candidate of weight. Ex-Sanders supporters could splinter in many directions. The Libertarians have Gary Johnson. He could pull as many votes as Perot in 1992. That is the biggest fly in Trumps ointment.
You don't see an outside party aka Greens, Libertarians or Constitutionalists having any influence in the election?
Also what are your predictions for say N.Africa, Asia, Europe...especially interested in your prediction on say Germany, France, Greece, Sweden and how this whole islamic immigration thing might change Europe?
I'm guessing that the Libertarians get about 4 to 5% of the vote with Johnson, the Greens get about 1 to 1.5% with Stein, and the others combined including the Constitution party get about 0.5%. It would be by far the best outcome for third parties since Perot, eclipsing Nader, but still nowhere near influencing the election except in very close states. Johnson is trying to appeal to both the anti-Hillary Democrats and the anti-Trump Republicans. It's hard to say which one he'll appeal to more, although traditionally the Libs take more off the Republicans than the Democrats. Stein splits votes from the Democrats of course, and the net effect will probably be a wash.
Islamic immigration, especially the speed of it, has a couple of effects that are already very apparent. First, and to my mind foremost, it's been a great boon for the right-wing populist to far-right parties across the continent. The mainstream parties pushed multicultural ideology, which I generally support in moderation, well past its breaking point. The result will probably be a ghettoized and marginal Muslim population in Germany and Sweden resembling that of modern France, although possibly even larger as a proportion of the population if immigration continues at current rates for several more years. This will breed both regular crime and Islamist extremism among this population, further reinforcing the feedback look that will keep them marginalized. Of course, there will still be some successful integration too, and the majority of outcomes will be somewhere in between.
I suspect that the main political fault lines in both the US and Europe will be between the "mainstream" and the right-wing populists, with occasional appearances by true left-wingers forming a smaller third group but with less influence and easier to fold into the mainstream. In Europe this will take the form of informal or formal grand coalitions between the center-left and center-right parties, opposing a large right-wing populist party like FN, AfD, FPÖ, PVV, Sweden Democrats, etc. In the US, the Republicans may morph from an extreme neoliberal party with right-wing populist elements to a predominantly right-wing populist party, with the old mainstream slowly defecting to the Democrats, who turn into the "mainstream" coalition. Sanders types may achieve a little bit of success here and there, but it's limited to pulling the Dem platform a bit to the left on selected issues.
Spoilerdigression about Greece :
Greece is an interesting case because it has both extremely high Muslim immigration and is an example where the third group of actual leftists managed to gain control. The refugees in Greece will be treated (by necessity) more like refugees in Turkey, Jordan, etc. where there are refugee camps and only a minority of them can try to join the host country's society. Of course, most would rather not stay in Greece anyway because of its terrible economy.
About Syriza and elected leftists generally, they provided a classic example of what happens when that group does get control. After five months of squabbling in which it was correctly pointed out (most eloquently by Varoufakis) that the Eurozone can-kicking was unsustainable, Tsipras in the end took the "deal" anyway, imposed all the austerity measures he had pledged not to, and de-facto repudiated the referendum he had called and won overwhelmingly. Syriza only pulled off a win anyway because Greece has a neo-Nazi party rather than a successful right-wing populist party. If they had a FN type party, it would be controlling the country right now, but even right-wing populists tend not to support neo-Nazis, and Syriza was the best-positioned non-mainstream party to take over.
In the end, leftists everywhere tend to just turn into mainstream center-left types in the rare cases when they do acquire some power, causing little effect on the system as a whole.
In the US, the Republicans may morph from an extreme neoliberal party with right-wing populist elements to a predominantly right-wing populist party, with the old mainstream slowly defecting to the Democrats, who turn into the "mainstream" coalition. Sanders types may achieve a little bit of success here and there, but it's limited to pulling the Dem platform a bit to the left on selected issues.
I agree with all but the bolded. A not-negligible portion of Sanders-Type people will want nothing to do with Democratic Party, especially if the Democrats start absorbing the old Republican establishment. My guess is that we could end up with a three-party system like the UK. The "Mainstream Party" and the "Retrumplican Party" would battle it out for the leadership, while the "Sanders Party" would play kingmaker, siding with Retrumplicans on issues like Trade, and with the Establishment Party on issues like Abortion.
Look, it is likely possible that Bernie Sanders loses the Democratic Primary, and it is also probable that Bernie Sanders begins a third party in the country. But from a view of the past, 3rd parties in the U.S haven't worked well since Teddy Roosevelt's reign:
There are a couple that I didn't put, but what I'm trying to point out is that 3rd parties don't usually win because they are not are not as strong as the Republicans and Democrats. Even though Bernie has a wave of thousands of people supporting him, he doesn't have the backing that the other parties have by different corporations and influential people as well as deemed a socialist, which have scared some democrats and republicans.
Look, it is likely possible that Bernie Sanders loses the Democratic Primary, and it is also probable that Bernie Sanders begins a third party in the country. But from a view of the past, 3rd parties in the U.S haven't worked well since Teddy Roosevelt's reign:
There are a couple that I didn't put, but what I'm trying to point out is that 3rd parties don't usually win because they are not are not as strong as the Republicans and Democrats. Even though Bernie has a wave of thousands of people supporting him, he doesn't have the backing that the other parties have by different corporations and influential people as well as deemed a socialist, which have scared some democrats and republicans.
The only successful third party candidate was Abraham Lincoln. That year the Democrats had two candidates on the November ballot. You're right. This is deja vu.
Bear in mind that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are both third party candidates. The future of third parties is through the main parties--until they figure out a way to plug the leak.
I understand that they are deemed 'outsiders' to the party, but they are still deemed to be Republican and Democrat. With both of them participating in the primaries and calling themselves Republican and Democrat respectively, they're simply a breath of fresh air to the party.
I understand that they are deemed 'outsiders' to the party, but they are still deemed to be Republican and Democrat. With both of them participating in the primaries and calling themselves Republican and Democrat respectively, they're simply a breath of fresh air to the party.
It's more than that. Several fundamental prediction schemes include 3rd party candidates as an element.This election, those boxes should be checked yes. While the candidates wear the party's colors, the disruption caused is similar to a maverick candidate.
This is particularly true of the Democrats. The Republicans were faced with the reality of Trump or Cruz as early as March. They have adjusted. The bloodletting among the Democrats is ongoing. If Sanders wins tomorrow, it will flow faster.
Its worse than that. Because of the way the superdelegates handled themselves yesterday ... it doesn't matter if Hillary wins CA, NM and NJ convincingly (obviously she will lose MT, ND and SD)... The Bernie supporters will understandably say that the whole thing was rigged, they were robbed etc.
In some ways it will be worse if she wins because they will say they were robbed, whereas if Bernie wins anyway they will feel vindicated and jubilant, while the Hillary camp will say that the premature announcement made Hillary supporters overconfident and depressed turnout. The point is a Bernie win/Hillary loss tomorrow is softened by what the superdelegates did, while a Hillary win is made much, much worse.
Who are you complaining about here? The super-delegates or the media? People have known which way the SDs are lying for months now, so anyone who's paying the slightest attention already knows the score.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
... Here goes:
... it doesn't matter if Hillary wins CA, NM and NJ convincingly (obviously she will lose MT, ND and SD)... The Bernie supporters will understandably say that the whole thing was rigged, they were robbed etc. 
