2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate (Page 2 of 17)

Confirmed in an election year, but the process started much earlier than that, and Kennedy came about after another nominee was rejected. And that was after a Planned retirement, not a sudden death.

We are eight months from the election. Eleven from inauguration day. The Republicans aren't going to approve Obama's nom. There is no reason for them to. They could put on a show, but wouldn't that be wasting everyone's time?

A republican senate isn't going to confirm a very liberal nominee. Even if they went through the whole process and only rejected him in the end, people would complain that they're not doing their job, because that's what the liberal politicians are saying. They will continue to say it unless Garland is confirmed, especially since it's an election year and it makes for a good stump speech.

Garland certainly isn't very liberal.  When the GOP loses the senate and the presidency they'll be wishing they had confirmed him when they had the chance.

Yeah I'd rather take a choice from Obama than Hillary.

I really don't know much about him. I've heard a lot from both sides and I haven't really had time to do much research this week. But the fact remains, there is really no incentive for the republicans to approve him. There is a very solid chance that a republican will be President by this time next year. You can say that Hillary has a lot of support, but she hasn't even begun to be held accountable for her actions in the public eye and neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz would allow her to slip by without throwing those actions in her face. Romney or McCain probably would have, but they're not around (yet).

Hillary's campaign doesn't have the energy of Obama's. She isn't going to make non-voters get out and vote. She isn't going to convert republicans. I'm not convinced that she will solidify her own party. I don't think democrat voter turnout will be impressive, just because she's a rich old white lady who acts like a rich old white lady. And on top of that, it would be super easy to make campaign ads featuring Hillary in a spinoff of Orange is the New Black.

Trump is a disaster. Don't get me wrong about that. I don't like him. I don't want him. I don't know if I'd bother to vote if he's the nominee. But his supporters are riled up and energized. He is a rich old white man who talks like a rich old white man, but he uses enough bad language and shocking threats to attract the angry voters.

Having these two in the race is embarrassing.

Yeah, but Trump would build a wall around every voting booth to keep democrats out.

I really don't think that Trump will be the nominee. But that could be desperate hope talking.

Question - does Trump owe a lot of his success to the fact that Hillary is the Democratic candidate?  I think enough people dislike her that most people might even see him as the lesser of two evils.

I don't see how that makes him preferable to Kasich or Rubio or Jeb.  None of them are Hillary Clinton either.  Trump is actually closer to being Clinton than any of them are.

The wall is simply hilarious to me.  Obama has been a deporting machine.  This is a red meat issue that frankly is almost irrelevant to America's problems.  The trade deals are a sore spot for a LOT of people, both conservative and liberal.  Firstly, 99% of people don't even know what's in them.  Nor do they truly know what affect they've had, good or bad.  They just assume they are heinous.  Okay, but Trump literally cannot fix them.  To pull out of a massive trade deal would be economic anarchy, the markets would shit the bed.  Like Obamacare, he would have to replace them with something.  And that something would need to pass Congress.  He cannot unilaterally do these things, which again, is something people don't realize. 

I can definitely envision Trump proclaiming he'll fix climate change in November, I see it now.  He'll say anything.  I just read an article about how mystified (and appalled) GOP leadership is when they've found out who are advising Trump on foreign policy.  Some are people they've never ever heard of.  Others are psychos who are at home on the Alex Jones type of conspiracy internet radio/video.  This is what scares me the most with Trump.  Who is this guy going to appoint to run the country????

I do sense that people are pissed, and that's natural.  Their ire should be directed on the CEO culture that has destroyed unions, closed down jobs, pillaged retirement funds, blocked universal healthcare, poisoned people, and bankrupted the infrastructure of the nation.  Many of these officials are Republican governors who now back Trump.  Chris Christie, Rick Scott, etc.  This is so absurd because while Trump is parading around government spending (on infrastructure, social security, military), he's being backed by those who have turned state governments into a complete wreck.  At least Kasich can tout that his state's house is mostly in order.

Well there are a number of things at hand.  There are racist folks in the south who want to get a white supremacist (and whether he is or not, that's how he's seen) in the White House after eight years of Obama.  There are white Democrats who feel marginalized by their own party (who they feel don't care about them as much as they care about the minority vote - that the party assumes they'll vote and don't court them anymore).  There are pockets (like Union officials) that usually vote democrat but like some of Trump's rhetoric.  And there's the fact that Trump is seen as an outsider and not covered in the slime that Washington politicians are.

Add all that up, and you see his power.  But, again, there are democrats who will never vote for Hillary Clinton.  She's seen as untrustworthy by the majority of the country.  It reminds me of 2004 - Bush was despised in a lot of the same ways that Trump is despised.  Was also called Hitler.  And yet the Democrats decided to throw in a candidate that was so underwhelming that Bush beat him.

Hillary is going to have Bernie supporters that either stay home on Election Day or go to Trump, especially if that race continues to get dirty.  She's going to have people who will not vote for her because she's untrustworthy.  Trump is a controversial figure, but I'd argue that Hillary is almost as controversial.  She's being buoyed by her husband's success, and she's thriving off her husband's name.  But Hillary herself is very unlikable nationally.

With another ISIS attack today, she's gonna take another hit.  She's seen as weak on national security, and whether that's true or not, Trump would make her look weak on national security.  Attack will mean Benghazi.  He'll hammer her on the emails and the indictment.  And she'll either have to fight back, or she'll have to play the victim.  And I don't know if either of those strategies would work for her.  And it literally wouldn't matter if what he says is true because Americans don't see to care.

Libertarians have no influence in the GOP.

Many of the rank & file Republican voters have no problem with government programs as long as they're able to benefit from them.  They don't like welfare and food stamps and similar programs because it's only available to some of the people, the one's they see as lazy.  They love medicare and social security, which is how you get to them carrying signs saying "keep the government out of my medicare" and the like.  That seems silly on its face, but what they're really saying is "don't politicize my health".  If universal health care was put up for referendum it would pass overwhelmingly with majorities of both parties.

I've seen Republicans in charge at the federal level.  They don't reduce the size or scope of government.  Bush had majorities in the house and senate for the first six years of his presidency.  Not a single cabinet department got a budget cut.  In fact, they all got huge increases.  The Department of Energy, which they supposedly want to eliminate, had its budget doubled under Bush.

I'm not in favor of universal health care, but I recognize that it is inevitable.  We'll go that way for the same reason every other civilized country already has, it saves money.

To understand the psychology on the situation, you have to shrink it down.   Imagine reading in your local paper that police are arresting record numbers of burglars in your city; do you say to yourself, "The law seems to have a handle on this; I guess I don't really need to lock my doors or pay for that security system anymore."

If you're honest with yourself, there is something inside you that gives you a sense of security having a door on your dwelling that you can close and lock.  The door isn't going to stop anyone that really wants to get inside; they can pick the lock or even just kick the door in, yet you still have a solid door that you can lock.

Most people want something solid that they can see and touch; statistics don't make the average person feel safe.  And we're beyond a fence doing the trick too; that's like saying only put a screen door on your home.  Fear rarely equals reason.  It's just human nature.

As for the trade deals, it can change; but what many can't accept or don't understand is that it will be very painful to change.  Is Trump selling it that way?  Of course not; no one would buy it.  Personally, I don't believe Trump ever thought he would be this successful.  I believe Trump's plan was to make a reasonable showing , say what people wanted to hear and then live the rest of his life off million dollar speaking fees at various events.  This whole thing has gotten away from him, and he's just holding on.

Trump loves running for President; when he becomes President, he isn't going to be as enthused.  It could easily turn into a Ulysses S Grant scenario where you have a President who doesn't really care and let's others run it.  Some would argue that's been the Obama philosophy too, but I believe he has had many pet issues he has pushed as personal goals.

Interesting that there is nobody jumping to disagree.

I just don't know who you're going to vote for if...

...is a deal breaker.

True.  But I think we can agree that there's a difference between your typical politician and the laundry list of scandals that the Clintons have left in their wake.  If anyone can give me a reason to vote for her that doesn't involve "well, everyone else is also awful, and I think she's less awful", I promise to reconsider.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/both-partie … 1460898001

I'm not alone.

At this point, all the candidates are really bad.  What's funny is that I used to complain about candidates like John Kerry or Al Gore or even Mitt Romney or John McCain.  I think all of them would be much better than any of these people.

One reason why I think Bernie might be the best case scenario is because he's too old to run for a second term.  If Trump loses, he's done.  If Hillary loses, she's done.  Both of them would've gotten too close, and it'd just be over.  Cruz would be done.  Jeb and Rubio were basically embarrassed to the point where they can't seriously run again.  Same with most of the Democrats that ran.  A Bernie presidency means that a 2020 election would basically be an entirely new field. 

Which, after decades of Bushes and Clintons, would be so very refreshing.

If it's Trump vs. Clinton, I'll vote 3rd party.  I live in a red state so my vote won't matter anyway.

The Bernie Bros will come around just like the PUMAs did eight years ago.  Clinton didn't drop out until Obama had the nomination locked up, in June.  Why she would expect any different from Sanders is puzzling.

Sanders needs to stay in just in case Clinton gets indicted (which is unlikely, but not impossible).

Trump is making a mockery of the process. He is appealing to the ugliness of America. The xenophobia, the mysoginist, the racism. Its a mad house.
that being said, I never thought the Trumpster had a chance of getting the nomination. I thought cooler heads would prevail and the RNC would find a way to torpedo his campaign. This has not happened.

Clinton is riding in on her popularity as First Lady and the fact that her husband was so beloved by many Dems.  However, I do not have faith in her and think she is not what she appears to be. She is simply a corporate lackey, in bed with the banks and super uber riche.
Many are fed up with the obstruction that dogger President Obama and many feel that Clinton can work with both sides of the aisle. While they fear that Sanders would face such obstruction and little or nothing would get done or ever change.

IMO, I think America needs the Bern but the DNC, Clinton machine is going to  do all it can to prevent that from happening

That's my two cents for what its worth...

Well, Jill Stein has already made a few moves on Twitter to get some of the Bernie supporters that Hillary is driving away.  It'll be interesting to see if she's able to pull enough votes to scare the Democrats.

Ralph Nader only got 685,128 votes (0.71% of the popular vote) in 1996.  In 2000, he got 2,882,955 votes (2.74%), including 97,488 in Florida.  The state that decided the election by 537 votes.

And if you didn't think Nader had an impact on 2000, Hillary's people are already calling Bernie the next Nader.  So if Stein can get the same jump that Nader got and steal away any of the Bernie people....it's going to be a problem for her.

Agree to disagree

Yeah but look at the states that she'd definitely be on the ballot in.  Because the election always comes down to a state here and a state there.  If Nader was only on the ballot in one state (Florida), he still would've disrupted the 2000 election.

Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida were the closest states in 2012 - they're your "battleground states".  Jill Stein is already on the ballot in five of those, and every one but Indiana is a possibility in 2016.  But of the big battleground states (Colorado, Ohio, and Florida), she's there.  And it wouldn't take a crazy amount of votes to change things up.

For example, what if Kasich actually becomes the VP candidate for the Republican?  Heck, what if he somehow steals the nomination?  It wouldn't take much for the Republicans to win Ohio in that case.  Same with Colorado and Florida.  That alone gives the Republicans 262 votes (if you give them every state that McCain or Romney got).  So it'd just take the Republican flipping basically any state that Obama got, and the election is over.

I'm not saying that Stein is going to win any of those states or even do half as well as Nader did.  But if she steals a few thousand votes here or there in any of those battleground states, it's going to be a problem.  And that doesn't even include people who decide not to vote, people who write in Bernie (not sure which states allow that), or people who get flipped to Trump.

Hillary is probably going to win.  But even against Trump (which is a dream scenario for her), I think she's going to struggle to unify the party.  And I don't think she'd do well with Independents so the party is basically all she has.