Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The problem with people uniting behind Hillary to defeat Trump is that every argument also applies to Hillary.  Republicans hate Hillary.  They hated Obama.  And the Republicans are going to be energized to take back the White House, just like the the Democrats were energized to get the White House back after eight years of George W. Bush.  So it honestly won't matter who is running for the Republicans, I think the nominee is going to get a ton of support.

The Republicans backed Jeb.  Then Rubio.  Now Cruz.  If Cruz fails or if Kasich can't steal the nomination, the Republicans will back Trump.  It'll happen.  Even the ones that hate Trump would be more terrified of Hillary in office, and they'll vote Trump to keep that from happening.

It's why this election is infuriating.  No one likes their candidate - they only hate the other side.  Cruz and Trump have abysmal favorability ratings, but Hillary isn't far behind. 

And, yes, Trump could run as a 3rd party candidate.  But so could Bernie.  As Democrats are fond of saying, he's not a Democrat and only ran so because, like you've said, the 3rd party candidates don't have much support.  But now he has the support, and if he ran as an independent, he'd get a ton of support.

Hillary is the favorite, but she's unpopular in her own party and very unpopular outside of it.  She's winning the primary with the help of the DNC, the Democratic establishment, and some very favorable primary rules.  She's not going to get people to rally to the polls in record numbers like Obama did, even if it's people running to the polls just to vote against Trump.  Throw in just the idea of indictment (even if it doesn't happen, which it probably won't), and Hillary is no sure bet.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

They don't have to unite.  If the Republicans don't bother voting, Trump loses.  I think he loses regardless.  Hillary is not well-liked, but Trump's unfavorable numbers are some of the worst of ALL-TIME!  His support is hardcore, but he appeals very poorly to true independent voters.  When pressed for specifics he dodges the question, and he's surely going to make a fool of himself in debates, news conferences, whatever.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Cruz suspended his campaign.


I need drugs.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

#NeverHillary #PrayForIndictment

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

If Hillary is indicted now, Obama will make it go away. She stands a better chance of paying for her crimes after the election. Which makes me wonder who her running mate will be.

I don't think I can vote for Trump. He might as well be Hillary.


My goodness, we're in one of the stupider Sliders episodes.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magaz … .html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton will go to war before Donald Trump would.  If you're voting for Hillary, you're voting for war.  She'd have troops in Syria in her first 100 days.  I don't think Trump would.

107 (edited by Slider_Quinn21 2016-05-03 23:04:47)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Something that I've been thinking about tonight watching the coverage.

100% of people have basically decided whether or not they *would* vote for Trump, right?  This isn't a normal election - Democrats aren't going to be introduced to Donald Trump as soon as primary season is over - most people in the US know him.  All the people that he's turned off are already turned off.  I honestly don't think there's anything he can do or say or could be revealed by Hillary that would cause him to lose any more votes.  He's already done and said everything, and the Republicans have tried to take him down.  It hasn't worked.

And I wonder if that explains why Hillary (and Bernie for that matter) is winning so much in national polls.  There are tons of people who are #NeverTrump but I wonder if independents/Bernie folks/populists/etc would switch to him once they actually are forced to listen to him in debates.  They might actually realize he's not that bad.

But there's no way he can lose any votes from now to the election, right?  Isn't that a positive on his side?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I don't think I can vote for Trump. He might as well be Hillary.

You should investigate the smaller parties.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

https://www.isidewith.com/

I'd take it twice, based on my experience.  For the first time, answer with your closest answer.  It will usually be one of those third choices (other stances).

The second time, answer yes/no to *everything* - pick the one that is closest to your beliefs.  The reason I say that is that I think most candidates say yes/no to most questions so you'll get more "matches"

#ImWithJill

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/char … -1.2626734

Now I loathe Krauthammer, but his op-ed verges on the hilarious.  Of course the "grass roots" or "Tea Party" chose the populist Trump!  NO issues will ever trump (bad pun I know) MONEY!  Abortion, foreign policy, free trade, climate change, whatever.  Throw them all out the window.  When it gets down to it, when you are broke, or struggling, there's nothing more important than money.  Americans work longer hours, get paid shit.  They've fought for decades against health insurers, been taxed to hell, and the like.  The economy greatly benefits the elite wealth class.  Hedge funds not hedge trimmers.  I told friends the MINUTE I saw Trump reference the Carrier plant being moved to Mexico from Indiana, he was going to win as long as he didn't make a complete fool of himself (he's come close several times). 

The Tea Party I always felt was hilarious.  They screamed about Obama, but deep down they are angry about the SAME things liberals are, being crapped on by the wealthy.  Sure the Paul Ryan's have whined that a class war is inappropriate but it's on like Donkey Kong.  Trump's revolution is perhaps just the start.  The days of Wall Street driven imperialism are numbered.  Mitt was their poster boy, and he was roundly rejected by voters.  Again I think Trump's policies are a welcome change, but he himself is not fit for the office.  He's imbalanced, and would be a non-stop source of embarrassment for the nation.  However, the wound he threw salt on was very real.  Economic populism, already rampantly fanned in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere, is here and it's here to stay. 

Which leads me back to the Fox guy.  Republicans took on "conservative" white voters over the years, but they have continued to mistake them for actual conservatives.  Trump knew this.  He saw the opening plain as day.  Sure he was beaten up by Cruz in actual conservative (social and economic) states like Utah or South Dakota or Texas.  But in many a state, like this week in Indiana, Trump flattened Teddy almost entirely on economic populism.  He'll do nothing about it of course, but there is a path there.  Sanders proved it too.  If you take Bernie and Trump supporters, who voted mainly on economics, and combined 75% of them, you win.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump is a member of the wealthy elite and has been since the day he was born.  The notion that he'll do anything that will hurt his own fortune or standing is ludicrous.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

pilight wrote:

Trump is a member of the wealthy elite and has been since the day he was born.  The notion that he'll do anything that will hurt his own fortune or standing is ludicrous.

Same exact thing could be said of Hillary.  The problem is that Trump can at least claim/lie about being his own man.  Everyone knows for sure that Hillary is in Wall Street's pocket.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
pilight wrote:

Trump is a member of the wealthy elite and has been since the day he was born.  The notion that he'll do anything that will hurt his own fortune or standing is ludicrous.

Same exact thing could be said of Hillary.  The problem is that Trump can at least claim/lie about being his own man.  Everyone knows for sure that Hillary is in Wall Street's pocket.

She wasn't born into money the way he was, but she is bought and paid for.  Saying Trump is bad doesn't mean I'm saying Clinton is good.  I'm almost sure to vote for a smaller party candidate.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I'm not saying you're a Hillbot by any means.  In fact, I'd say you've been the most level-headed in this discussion.  It just sucks that it's come down to what amounts as the two worst candidates that the parties could come up with.

They're both essentially insiders.  They're both gonna end to some sort of war.  They're both elite.  And I don't think either is really interested in making the country better for anyone but the top 1%.  So....great.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Enh; if Rome is going to burn anyway, we may as well have Nero play us a tune.  Trump will be entertaining if nothing else.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The Trump thing could still take a sharp turn. While it's unlikely, there are some avenues by which he would not get the nomination. Which makes it interesting that A. Cruz merely suspended his campaign and did not endorse Trump. I've heard that he's still running ads, but I don't know if that's true.

Paul Ryan has also not endorsed Trump yet. It's been long rumored that the party will try to get Ryan the nomination at the campaign. He says he won't take it, but they always say that.

So, however unlikely it is, there could be more politics going on here. Delegates could decide not to show up to vote for Trump, for example. Crazy things happen at conventions. I'm not saying that I believe anything like that will happen, but I think that there are some interesting angles being played by certain members of the party, each of whom would stand to benefit from a brokered convention.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

TemporalFlux wrote:

Enh; if Rome is going to burn anyway, we may as well have Nero play us a tune.  Trump will be entertaining if nothing else.

Well, my hope rests in three things.

1. The American government is structured so that if a horrible fascist is elected, there's checks and balances in place to prevent the president from doing too much harm.  I'm not in the "the president has no power so who cares?" camp, but there are things in place to keep Trump from doing too much harm.  If he crosses some line - like breaking the Geneva Convention or something - he can be kicked out of office.

2. The rest of the world might be "scared" of Trump, but I don't think the US loses any allies out of this.  Just because the rest of the world still tends to lean on the United States more than anything.  I think even the most scared of countries would just sit back for four years and hope nothing bad happens.

3. Electing Trump would force major changes in both parties.  Obviously people are turning against establishment politics, and I think both parties need to start looking at that.  If Hillary doesn't win, it will be because she's bought by Wall Street.  It could lead to reforms there.  It could lead to more people (especially down ticket) to doing more for the peoples' interests than the party's interests.  Maybe break down the parties' power a little bit.

That's maybe wishful thinking but it's my hope coming out of this mess.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The problem with the checks and balances is that the politicians have created an elite class for themselves. This is the problem with not having term limits. It allows them to live in the clouds, never beholden to the people who put them in office. They hold onto power by scheming and lying and cheating and stealing. We've seen the Constitution blatantly violated, and nobody is held accountable for it.

One of the safety measures is supposed to be the people of this country. Ultimately, we have the power to change who is in office and how things are done. However, there is a lack of education on many subjects. The media has a lot of power when it comes to what the people know, and therefore how the people think. They distort the truth all the time. Look at the recent racial tensions. A lot of that was caused by misrepresentation of the facts by the media. That misrepresentation of the truth caused anger, which led to crimes, which led to more anger. And the politicians just fueled the fire. Why? Because it's easier to lead herds of people than it is to lead individuals. As long as you keep people in groups, with "us vs them" running through their heads, they unite and become one unit. It's why the country was ever so briefly united after 9/11.


It's possible that discussing politics while editing a dystopian novel is not the best idea. smile

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I like that Hillary is so unlikable that her own campaign is basically saying "Don't worry, Bill is going to do most of the work."

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

You know you've hit a low point when the aging rapist is you're safety net.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

What's crazy is that Bill gets so much credit for fixing the economy when a) most of the benefits were due to the fact that a revolutionary piece of technology was invented during his presidency that changed the world economy as we know it and b) the policies that led to the subprime disaster were done during his watch.

So the benefits that the American economy experienced during his presidency were 1) coincidental and 2) probably not repeatable and the economical disaster during the Bush presidency were really Clinton's fault.

But, yeah, let's get Bill back in charge of stuff.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Presidents, like quarterbacks, get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go badly.  The president has little impact on the economy.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Yeah, and that's what's sorta scary if you're in the #NeverTrump category.  Most voters vote based on the economy, and if the economy dips in the next few months, it could drive people to Trump.

It reminds me of the election in the final season of the West Wing.  Vinick had that election wrapped up until the nuclear disaster flipped the script.  Something big could push the election either way, especially if Hillary continues to lock herself to Obama (although I think that's a bit silly since they seem to disagree a ton).  If Obama's final few months is uneventful and prosperous, people would want more of the same.  If something happens that trips him up, people might want a change.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I read an article awhile back that the insurance companies are going to be raising rates in October due to the failing Obamacare policies.   Could be an October surprise for a lot of people.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I'm still not convinced that the Democratic Party is going to unify behind Hillary.  The stuff in Nevada has gotten ugly, and the DNC (headed by Debbie Wasserman Schultz) is basically attacking the Sanders campaign.  I wasn't there so I can't speak to any violence, but I'm not sure how the DNC can even claim objectivity anymore.  And when Hillary gets the nomination, I think a ton of Sanders voters are going to be pretty pissed off at the DNC *in addition* to the hate they already feel for Hillary herself.

So to get Hillary elected, the Democratic Party is willingly pissing off the majority of voters under 45.  These are not only people they need to beat Trump, but they're voters that they need down ticket.  And in 2018.  And 2020.  And 2022.  And so on and so on and so on.  This is the future of the party, and the head of the DNC is basically calling them crazy, violent zealots.

The amount of power the Clintons must have in the Democratic Party is staggering.  Because literally any candidate other than Hillary should be able to wipe the floor with Donald Trump, but the Clintons are throwing every bit of power they have to make sure that the establishment stops at nothing to make sure she wins.  I'm honestly fascinated to see what kind of meltdown would happen if she doesn't win this time.  I'm guessing it will be epic.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Bah. Hillary Clinton doesn't need any voter support to win an election! Nothing to worry about there.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well Bernie is saying that he's going to get in line and help elect someone who isn't Donald Trump.  But I don't see what's in it for Bernie to help Hillary.  He'd be well in his 80s before he could legitimately run for president again (and she'd be harder to beat as a sitting president).  If she loses, I guess he could technically run in 2020. 

But he's not a Democrat, and the DNC has been awful to him.  And apparently the Clinton campaign is scared that Bernie folks won't come, even if he campaigns for her.  Even if he's the VP!  They've alienated the Bernie crowd so much that I just don't know if they'll come around.

I still think he could run as an independent.  I was saying that Jill Stein could get some votes.  Bernie could win some states.  He could almost certainly prevent either side from getting to 270.  But Trump wins if it goes to the Senate, right?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

One more thing....and it's something I truly don't understand.

Hillary had this thing wrapped up in 2015.  It was locked and loaded.  She had basically every superdelagate, her former campaign chairwoman supporting her as the head of the DNC, support from minorities and women.  It was over.  She never had to attack Bernie or have any of her surrogates attack Bernie.  She could've praised Bernie and agreed with him and amended her policies, and started building bridges to Bernie's people from day one of her campaign.

Instead, she's burned tons of bridges.  She should've been the alternative from day one knowing that there was NO CHANCE that Bernie could win.  Instead, #NeverHillary is stronger than ever.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

It goes to the House, not the Senate, if no one has a majority.

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote

This was Sanders' only shot.  He'll have the same difficulties running as a third party that we discussed about Trump.  Sore Loser and Simultaneous Registration laws would keep him off of the ballot in almost all states.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I thought I saw something that said he'd be allowed in 42 states.  I couldn't verify and it was a BernieBro so it's probably completely wrong smile

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Some of us feel that Clinton has been bought and paid for by the corporate elite. Sanders is not. America needs a man like the Bern but the corporations and uber riche are not gonna let that happen. they want to keep the country as a police state ruled by an obligarchy. Before long it will be a crime to be born poor...
Bernie Sanders supporters do not want this and have such an adversion to Clinton that they cannot bring themselves to cast a vote for this woman. Will they stay home or go Green Party? 

On the other front, the GOP is crapping their diapers. they never took Trump seriously and thus they did not try to torpedo his campaign. Now they are in a jam: if the party supports him and he loses by a landslide(very likely) they will lose some favor and even several seats in not only the Senate but the House as well. This is not what they want.
The Dems are trying to pull up some crap about his treatment of women but it may be too little too late. The GOP should have thrown their weight behind Chris Christie a year ago but he was not far enough to the Right for the fringe supporters of the party and thus they are stuck with the buffoon, Donald Trump.

I'm just waiting for a comet to smash into the planet and put us all out of our misery.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Some of the Bernie Bros will stay home or vote smaller party.  Some may even go for Trump.  The overwhelming majority will vote Clinton.

Trump is busy going back on almost all the things that made him popular to begin with.  He's taking money from all the big GOP donors, including people like Adelson that he previously trashed.  He tried to walk back the Muslim travel ban, going from hectoring "We have no choice" before South Carolina to meekly saying it was just a "suggestion".  He's distanced himself from his own tax plan, now saying he wants tax increases.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I'm still not sure as many people will jump to Hillary as you think.  Because these guys don't have party loyalty.  The difference between 2008 and 2016 is that the Rebels won in 2008.  Of course the older/establishment voters were going to get in line.  Young people don't have party loyalty, and a lot of these people are "independents."  And if they really believe in the "cause" instead of a "party line" then they'll vote 3rd party before they vote Hillary.  I really believe that.

The funny thing is that these two candidates are so historically awful that I'm not sure either party is going to be able to steal many of the other side's people.  Republicans might hate Trump, but they aren't gonna vote for Hillary.  And Democrats might hate Hillary, but they aren't voting for Trump.

At the end of the day, I bet we get historically low voter turnout because people don't want to vote for either of these guys.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Low turnout usually comes when people don't care about the candidates.  That's not the case here.  The lowest turnout ever was in 1996, when the race wasn't close between a reasonably well liked incumbent and a has been challenger who excited no one.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Well, I just don't know if there are enough people who are going to go out and vote *against* someone.  I don't know if you can rally up support *against* a candidate.  No one loves Hillary.  And I'm not sure the people who love Trump are going to flock to vote for him.  People might hate Hillary and/or Trump, but I don't think that means people will go out and vote for the other guy so they won't win.

I think most people assume Hillary will crush Trump.  So if you're a Trump hater, why would you bother going out and voting for someone you don't really like.  Other people will do that for you.  Your vote doesn't really matter, you don't really support the person you'd vote for, and other people will beat him for you.  I think that's the mentality you'll see out of most Democrats.

It's like sports.  I might hate some team like the Philadelphia Eagles.  I might want them to lose every game they play.  I might tell myself that the world would be a horrible place if the Eagles ever won the Super Bowl.  But if the Eagles are playing, say, the Jaguars (a team I don't care about at all), I'm not going to pay to watch.  Or even watch for free.  Because, at the end of the day, I don't care if the Jaguars win.  I'll just check my phone later that night to see if the Eagles lost.

That's how I think this election will go.  Few people will hate Trump enough to vote for Hillary and vice versa.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I've noticed that everyone has been quiet about politics around here lately... Is that because there's nothing to say? Or is everyone like me, driven completely insane by the news and internet over the past few days, to the point where if I started to say something I would end up writing a long rant with a lot of bad words?

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Once it became Trump and Hillary, the whole process became no fun.  They're both so awful.  I don't have any more words for it.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I was watching the last Hunger Games movie the other night (speaking of awful) and I realized that it was the same situation. Snow or Coin... both were corrupt, horrible leaders. It was like watching a movie about Trump and Hillary. Which is which? I have no idea.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

This is the lull period in the election cycle.  It won't pick back up in earnest until around Labor Day.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

To fill the gap, on Mondays watch Brain Dead on CBS.  I watched the pilot this past week, and was shocked that it's actually a sci-fi show; I had thought it would be just another Good Wife type show.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I'm hoping for some surprises around the conventions.


Please let there be some surprises around the conventions. PLEASE!!!!!


I've heard of Brain Dead, but I usually skip CBS. Their shows usually bore me, and on the rare occasion when they haven't, the shows have been quickly canceled. But since it's summer, I might check it out. There's another one coming up called American Gothic which I've been considering.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I mean unless Hillary gets indicted (and there's been so little movement on that front that I wonder if that's dead) I don't really know what surprises there could be.

Now considering the high impeachability of these two candidates, I think the VP selections will be interesting.  If I'm Paul Ryan, I'm getting my guy in there and calling for impeachment at the first chance (so February, I assume).  It'd be the strongest bi-partisanship ever, and Ryan would get who he wants in the Oval Office.

It might be interesting if Hillary goes with Elizabeth Warren.  So if the first woman ever elected is forced to resign quickly into her first term, at least women would get an immediate second chance.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

The nightmare for the GOP is a clean sweep (House, Senate, White House).  House probably not happening, but this is a blue-heavy Senate map, unlike 2014 or 2018, and losing the Senate is a likelihood.  Especially if Trump drags the ballot down with him, another likelihood.  At which point, refusing to consider "moderate" Judge Garland could be a complete disaster.  Hillary would be able to nominate (should she choose) an overt left-leaning jurist, and the right would be completely powerless to stop her.  A simple majority confirms. 

SQ, she's not picking Sen. Warren as a running mate.  I can't imagine the two of them ever getting along well enough for that.  It's going to be a Tim Kane-type, someone with a strong history in Democratic party politics.  Running mate makes next to no difference in how people vote nowadays, unless you choose a bad one. 

Info, I don't expect surprises.  I think the Republicans are stuck with Trump.  If he backs out now, he'll be looked at as the clown of the century (if not already).  I think he'll eventually tone down the nonsense, and a neutered Trump is really an ineffective and boring Trump.  He'll go out with a whimper, and save whatever brand viability he has left.  The damage this fool has done to his own brand worldwide is simply incredulous.  This is how he earns a living, heck how his immediate family does as well.  His golf course already lost a PGA event ironically to Mexico of all places, as buildings and hotels with his name on it are being quietly boycotted.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I refuse to give up hope! Don't take my dreams away from me!

145 (edited by Grizzlor 2016-06-19 21:55:24)

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Informant wrote:

I refuse to give up hope! Don't take my dreams away from me!

Are you kidding, every employee of a cable news organization, and 90% of comedians are praying for mayhem, and most of them are atheists!  Not gonna happen, to quote Dana Carvey.  Trump's campaign is probably going to be broke by Cleveland anyway, because he won't take the RNC's money.  They refuse to use data modeling, they think his dumb tweets and crazy speeches will propel them home.  No chance.  The last and perhaps only successful "populist" candidate was Andrew Jackson, 200 years ago.  In other words, he needs them, or he'll be bankrupt himself for like the 6th time.

Anything short of a complete withdrawal by The Donald would mean an open revolt at the convention.  Sure the vast majority of actual delegates are still firmly in the RNC's corner, they are not Trumpites.  But to deny him on the grounds that he'll lose, that's a step I can't imagine they have the balls to pull off.  Trump and his supporters and voters would flip out.  He'd spend every minute from then until November telling his voters who to vote against in the fall. 

The GOP created this mess, now they're drowning in it.  They conditioned their voters with 24/7 Fox-fed bombast about how everything that happens in Washington is crooked and corrupt.  That everyone who works as a Federal employee is on the dole and doesn't actually DO anything productive.  The Trumpster has watched this, he's heard this, and he wisely calculated that if I portray myself as the 21st Century Archie Bunker he would ride that wave like he was on easy street.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump is willing to take the RNC's money.  They've established joint fund raising committees.  He gave up his self funding pledge as soon as he clinched the nomination.  Problem is that many of the standard GOP donors won't give for him.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

I don't buy the doomsday scenario for the Republicans.  I think the big people are waiting on the FBI indictment stuff.  I think they're holding out hope that she gets defeated by them because I think they'd be more okay with a Sanders or Biden presidency.

Once Hillary clears the FBI hurdle, the Republicans will bend over backwards to support Trump.  They hate her.  H. A. T. E.  And once she's out there enough, the cavalry will show up.  Maybe they'll donate to the RNC as a way to save face, but they're not going to just sit back and let Hillary Clinton waltz into the White House.

And even if they do, I don't buy that Trump will make down-ballot candidates win.  The big Republican donors will donate money to someone.  If they're not donating to Trump, then it'll mean more money to Senatorial candidates in swing states.  If they're willing to let the presidency go away, then they'll make sure they get as many Senate votes as possible.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

They can donate all they want, but the rub is going to be clear.  If Trump continues to behave in this manner, he'll tick off independent voters, who will shy away from the GOP line.  If he fades badly and there's no chance of victory, Republicans will stay home. 

Even worse, apparently the list of GOP headliners willing to speak in Cleveland is VERY short.  This is really the worst news of all for The Donald.  How can you captivate the public for several days when no one is going to speak???  Having Sarah Palin during prime time is not going to cut it. 

There's over 4 months to go, but John McCain was sunk the moment he looked pretty foolish trying to dictate the Federal response to the 2008 financial crisis.  Obama urged patience, not to mention that he recognized neither of them were yet elected President and allowed GWB to do his job.  That was one moment.  Trump has had several of these in the last couple weeks alone.  He tweets on every major crisis, giving his well thought musings, probably while dropping a deuce.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Trump is already fading.  The latest ABC poll has him down 12 points, and that's with the Bernie Bros still showing as undecided.  This could be a blowout so bad it would make Alf Landon blush.

Re: 2016 US Elections: Discuss and Debate

Again, if Donald is going to be the disaster we all assume he's going to be, then the Republicans will probably do very well in congressional elections because they're going to get all the money usually earmarked for the presidency.  And Republicans will realize that if they can't win the White House, they should at least make it as hard for Hillary as possible.  Winning both houses of Congress is the best way to make that happen.

What's funny is that Hillary has now spent weeks talking only about Donald Trump.  She's completely stopped talking about herself.  Probably because there's virtually nothing to talk about that would be positive.  And she has so many jokes in her speeches that it seems more like she's running to join the cast of Saturday Night Live.

At the very least, this election is going to make the world forget how bad the British people look.  So our friends across the pond will appreciate that.