[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Johnnypenso]

IF the data was used improperly and IF Bernie explicitly ordered it done, then sure. As the facts currently sit, neither of those IFs have been anywhere near conclusively shown. So at the moment, the "hypocrisy" you seem so desperate to pin on him doesn't really exist.

If nothing was conclusively proven, why is anyone out of a job over it?

 

[Sanji Himura]

IF Bernie explicitly ordered it done, then sure.

Did I say that Sanders himself ordered that the data be taken? As far as anyone is concerned, it is just these four staffers who did it on their own. This does mirror Watergate in a sense because even though the man in charge was as far away from the actual "crime", it would be any possible cover up that would bring about his downfall.

EDIT:

OP UPDATE: In honor of the holidays, all polls that are currently being tracked by the OP are being updated now since RCP will not do any update emails until after the new year. I will update now, on January 5th (the first Tuesday of the new year), and then resume normal schedule on the 15th.

 

[dxm8975]

Trump's popularity is at least partly rooted in the belief that he will do what the country needs rather than simply keeping citizens "pleased". If all you want is to do what pleases the electorate just fire all the politicians and run the country using polling data, it would be much cheaper.

Another source of Trump's popularity is this kind of attitude towards conservatism and conservatives in general. It seems to be a popular thing these days to refer to conservatives as morons, radicals, idiots etc. Unfortunately those idiots have one vote just like the rest of us and if you 🤬 off enough of them they may just rise up and teach the country a lesson or two. If the dialogue between the left and right was a little more conciliatory on both sides and they were able to work together for the common good with a little give and take, there wouldn't be a Donald Trump or a Bernie Sanders for that matter.

Yeah I think you're right. But to me seemed more "within his own logic" as to what he thinks the U.S. really need to have at the moment, rather than from general ideas from the public actually.... Probably this trend might reflect the failures during Obama's regime from 2008 especially in his political strategies for Middle East for oils and other natural resources available in the countries such as Saudi Arabia, Libya and Israel, and for the eastern Europe(including during Crimea crisis in 2014 he got severely reproached for trying to reconcile the matter all one-sidedly, and flaws in his own plans to bombard the eastern part of Ukraine etc.) as well as a series of reconstructing policies in economy and health insurance(so-called "Obama care") all coming down the drain after all - and this is what put off some of these electorate who pictured their own country as "the more powerful and prosperous nation" as shown in Trump's own slogan for the post "To make America great again !".

I found it interesting to see Trump's long-standing popularity from the reformists showing that quite a few of the people think the U.S. needs to take some drastic changes of direction in different aspects that Obama did years ago, in seemingly more promising way to make the country safer as the dominant state of the world.

 

[Swagger897]

Probably this trend might reflect the failures during Obama's regime from 2008 especially in his political strategies for Middle East for oils and other natural resources available in the countries such as Saudi Arabia, Libya and Israel, and for the eastern Europe(including during Crimea crisis in 2014 he got severely reproached for trying to reconcile the matter all one-sidedly, and flaws in his own plans to bombard the eastern part of Ukraine etc.) as well as a series of reconstructing policies in economy and health insurance(so-called "Obama care") all coming down the drain after all - and this is what put off some of these electorate who pictured their own country as "the more powerful and prosperous nation" as shown in Trump's own slogan for the post "To make America great again !".

Quite possibly the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump's popularity is at least partly rooted in the belief that he will do what the country needs rather than simply keeping citizens "pleased". If all you want is to do what pleases the electorate just fire all the politicians and run the country using polling data, it would be much cheaper.

There's a big difference between saying that you will do what the country needs, and actually doing what the country needs. There have been countless occasions where political leaders have tried to justify poor decision-making on the grounds of doing what is necessary rather than what is popular. It can usually be traced back to errors in the assumptions that they made in the first place - does the country actually need what they are promising? And if not, why are they trying to present it as a necessity? Because then they're guilty of the very thing that they were trying to avoid in the first place - the politics of personality.

So where is the evidence that America needs what Trump is promising?

 

[Dotini]

So where is the evidence that America needs what Trump is promising?

His astounding and still climbing polling numbers!

Obviously, many citizens are extremely unhappy with the diet of corruption they have been served up with for so long they could puke. It's been a bad number of years for the establishment, and they have shamefully lost the trust of the electorate. Trump is now the prohibitive favorite for the Republican nomination. And for better or worse, he could demolish the damaged and shop-worn Clinton. IMO, a Trump presidency could a rocky ride and be a disaster as bad as anyone else. But at least he does not appear to be rabid about starting WWIII, which is the most important thing of all, IMO.

 

[Denur]

the diet of corruption

Please elaborate, what corruption has been proven?

 

[Dotini]

Please elaborate, what corruption has been proven?

The corruption is baked into the cake in the system of lobbyists, corporations, super-pacs and elite individuals making millionaires out of our congressmen and other politicians. Our politicians make themselves rich by doing the bidding of the 1%, and ignore the electorate who placed them into office.

 

[Denur]

The corruption is baked into the cake in the system of lobbyists, corporations, super-pacs and elite individuals making millionaires out of our congressmen and other politicians. Our politicians make themselves rich by doing the bidding of the 1%, and ignore the electorate who placed them into office.

I thought this is what you meant. But this is legal, isn't it, in the USA? And can it therefor still be called corruption?

 

[BobK]

I thought this is what you meant. But this is legal, isn't it, in the USA? And can it therefor still be called corruption?

Corruption doesn't have to be illegal but it usually is.

 

[A2K78]

I love this article

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8395917/hillary-clinton-hawk

Whereas Obama was GWB 1.5 on foreign policy, Clinton would be a full 2.0. If anything one can only imagine how much more damage beyond Libya she would do. Then again I'm quite sure ISIS must be clamoring for her to be in office than trump given his somewhat sane approach to the Middle East.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The corruption is baked into the cake in the system of lobbyists, corporations, super-pacs and elite individuals making millionaires out of our congressmen and other politicians. Our politicians make themselves rich by doing the bidding of the 1%, and ignore the electorate who placed them into office.

I thought this is what you meant. But this is legal, isn't it, in the USA? And can it therefor still be called corruption?

Ohh, a double whammy. Here is some inconvenient truth. Federal law allows a individual to donate to a campaign for a maximum of $2,300. That by itself doesn't buy a lot of influence, but when a person, such as Dinesh D'Souza for example, tries to bundle (Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle") $20,000, he goes to jail as a felon. But look at the list of Obama's bundlers, and trust me the list is quite extensive:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php

And that is for the 2012 campaign. Here is his 2008 campaign:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php

And you people think that he runs the most transparent adminsitration in history... (that was sarcasm).

 

[TenEightyOne]

Ohh, a double whammy. Here is some inconvenient truth. Federal law allows a individual to donate to a campaign for a maximum of $2,300. That by itself doesn't buy a lot of influence, but when a person, such as Dinesh D'Souza for example, tries to bundle (Bundlers are people with friends in high places who, after bumping against personal contribution limits, turn to those friends, associates, and, well, anyone who's willing to give, and deliver the checks to the candidate in one big "bundle") $20,000, he goes to jail as a felon. But look at the list of Obama's bundlers, and trust me the list is quite extensive:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php

And that is for the 2012 campaign. Here is his 2008 campaign:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/bundlers.php

The facts are simple. Bundling is legal when the people contributing to the bundle are genuine. In the case of Dinesh D'Souza he testified that they were not. So you have no point.

And you people think that he runs the most transparent adminsitration in history... (that was sarcasm).

No, it was a mis-spelling.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

His astounding and still climbing polling numbers!

That just means that he is popular.

Our last government got into power on a platform of "doing what is necessary, not what is popular", particularly when it came to the budget. They attempted to return to surplus within a year, and their solution to this was to end universal health care, severely cut back on welfare, raise the age of retirement, put tighter restrictions on student loans while deregulating university fees (allowing universities to charge what they wanted) and awarding generous paid parental leave programs to high income earners while ignoring corporate tax avoidance.

They promised to "do what was necessary" and were popular when voted in, but then they tried to take a pound of flesh from the vulnerable and at-risk to pay for it. None of it was necessary, and most people agree that it was the worst possible thing they could have done. So please, explain to me how Trump's popularity is proof that his policies are what the country needs.

Our politicians make themselves rich by doing the bidding of the 1%, and ignore the electorate who placed them into office.

And the solution to this problem is to put a one-percenter in charge?

I'm quite sure ISIS must be clamoring for her to be in office than trump given his somewhat sane approach to the Middle East.

First, I think that you're over-stating ISIL's stength given that they have been losing territory all year; in January, they controlled 40% of Iraq, but today, they control just 17% and the city of Ramadi - their last significant stronghold - is expected to fall to Iraqi forces any day.

Secondly, and more importantly, I fail to see how Trump's policy on the Middle East is "sane" given that it is practically guaranteed to create more terrorists. He wants a moratorium on Muslim migration to the United States; that is going to be interpreted by the Muslim community as "guilty until proven innocent", with people denied the right to practice their faith because of that faith and the assumption that they must therefore despise your way of life and are all planning on killing you and implementing sharia law and force you to identify yourself as "American" while upholding values and an identity that is no longer your own. The assumption of guilt is only going to generate anger and hatred, and what's that going to create?

Give me a T!
Give me an E!
Give me an R!
Give me an R!
Give me an O!
Give me an R!
Give me an I!
Give me an S!
Give me a T!
Give me an S!

What does it spell? TERRORISTS!

 

[A2K78]

Trump's rhetoric concerning Muslims it didn't come as a surprise to me and why? He's repeating what neoconservatives and the pro-Israel crowd have been saying for years. On top of this all the criticism he have received is full of hypocrisy seeing how there those on the right and left the house have supported a similar policy.

Now what makes Trump's foreign policy sane..first off he actually called out the warmongers who supported invading Iraq and Libya especially the growth of ISIS. Second, beside Paul he doesn't fancy any military adventures (like what Clinton is advocating) to overthrow Assad, let alone wanting to bomb Iran. Finally, like Ron Paul he actually realizes the sheer stupidity of the Americas military presence in South Korea, Japan and other foreign countries.

That said Trump might not be the ideal candidate(seeing how he looks like the second coming of T. Roosevelt) but in some areas he's far more sane than what I see on the left or right.

 

[Dotini]

And the solution to this problem is to put a one-percenter in charge?

Yes, Trump insists he's the solution because he doesn't owe anybody anything, and can't be bought.

But personally, I think that while that may be so, Donald lacks the tact required for high office. He seems bombastic, pompous, arrogant, narcissistic, and tacky. But on the other hand, he may be the 2nd coming of Christ.

His nostrums on immigration, employment and economic recovery, taxation and foreign policy are currently quite appealing to a wide variety of newly dispossessed formerly middle-class voters from across the political spectrum. He clearly stand an excellent chance of being elected the next US president.

 

[huskeR32]

If nothing was conclusively proven, why is anyone out of a job over it?

Because he's in the middle of a presidential campaign, and just like every other campaign that's ever been run, they want to avoid even the slightest whiff of wrongdoing?

Or maybe because he disapproves of what his staffers did, even if it wasn't illegal?

There are several possible explanations here, no need to jump to conclusions.

--

Did I say that Sanders himself ordered that the data be taken?

*sigh*

Then what was the point of this?:

Not at all. Sanders is claiming to run a pretty clean campaign here. I'm just proving that when given the opportunity, Sanders is as big of a hypocrite as the rest of them.

If you weren't implying that he ordered it done, in what way would he be hypocritical?

As far as anyone is concerned, it is just these four staffers who did it on their own.

Then again, where is the hypocrisy on Sanders' part?

This does mirror Watergate in a sense because even though the man in charge was as far away from the actual "crime", it would be any possible cover up that would bring about his downfall.

At the moment, this isn't anywhere near like Watergate.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Just registered to vote in AZ. Haven't done that since I moved here years ago. I think the first vote is in March.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, Trump insists he's the solution because he doesn't owe anybody anything, and can't be bought.

But personally, I think that while that may be so...

But is it so? Of his $5 million campaign he's only put up short of $2 million himself.

 

[Dotini]

But is it so? Of his $5 million campaign he's only put up short of $2 million himself.

In general, I think it probably is so. For example, I think Jeb has spent at least $50 million, sourced from various PACs, corporations etc.

But, yes, detailed comparative independent audits needs to be produced in order to have a better answer.

 

[A2K78]

His nostrums on immigration, employment and economic recovery, taxation and foreign policy are currently quite appealing to a wide variety of newly dispossessed formerly middle-class voters from across the political spectrum. He clearly stand an excellent chance of being elected the next US president.

Its quite interesting you say this when you consider fact that pundits like Amy Walter keep saying that Trump is the benefactor of "white angry voters" when reality it the failure of establishment politics/politicians over the past 16 years which is driving his candidacy.

Like I said, I'm no fan of Trump but I would take a Trump Presidency(even though I prefer a Ron or Rand one) over Clinton as he stand a chance of doing very little damage compared to what I see on both sides; Clinton of all the candidates I see as the most dangerous as she insist she'll not only meddle with the economy in a big way, but also have a foreign policy that entails more stupid meddling in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

 

[Adamgp]

Interesting video of Trump on Oprah's show from 25 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MOKi5YeNtRI

 

[TenEightyOne]

Interesting video of Trump on Oprah's show from 25 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MOKi5YeNtRI

He talked crap even then, apparently. "The poorest people in Kuwait live like kings!" he tells us with his usual disregard for facts.

 

[ukfan758]

Fox Business Debate Details Post:

To qualify for the "Kiddie Table", a candidate must register at least one percent in any of the five most

According to Politico, if the debate were to be held at post time, the tables would be set like this:

[Adult Table]
Donald Trump
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Ben Carson
Jeb Bush
Chris Christie

[Kiddie Table]
Rand Paul
Jon Kasich
Carly Fiorina
Mike Huckabee
Rick Santorum
George Pataki

I for one would love to see Jeb Bush out of this race. What is so great about him and having a Bush Dynasty? Both his father and his brother were disasters due to their wreckless spending and decisions, what would be different about him? He's just another Koch Brothers candidate.

Edit: Oh and take Trump out too.

 

[A2K78]

Interesting video of Trump on Oprah's show from 25 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/MOKi5YeNtRI

Great video and I say this because everything he said in that video is essentially right on the money.

And yes depending on where you live in the Middle East e.g. Libya(during Gaddafi rule),Kuwait, Dubai, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia to name some places the people do live kings in the fact that they enjoy a high standard of living thanks in part to the oil wealth.

In regard to trade he's basically highlighting something Austrian economist has been saying for a very along time when to come foreign policy and trade e.g. these trade deals(TPP, NAFA, CAFTA, etc) are essentially in favored certain parties hence why they aren't technically free.

 

[TenEightyOne]

And yes depending on where you live in the Middle East e.g. Libya(during Gaddafi rule),Kuwait, Dubai, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia to name some places the people do live kings in the fact that they enjoy a high standard of living thanks in part to the oil wealth.

Surely if you believe that then you're as deluded as Trump? You agree with him that there are no poor people in Kuwait or, if there are, they "live like kings"? Madness.

 

[ukfan758]

Surely if you believe that then you're as deluded as Trump? You agree with him that there are no poor people in Kuwait or, if there are, they "live like kings"? Madness.

Yup they certainly live like kings...

 

[A2K78]

Surely if you believe that then you're as deluded as Trump? You agree with him that there are no poor people in Kuwait or, if there are, they "live like kings"? Madness.

You completely miss the point...in certain gulf monarchies/countries(not all) the standard of living is quite high for a certain portion of the population. Why do you think individuals from extremely poorer neighboring countries pour into places likes Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Oman to name a few? Its not just about the availability of jobs and the generous welfare, but also the fact they enjoy standard of living that is moderately much higher.

 

[Swagger897]

Gee, how bout that U.A.E... With all their government grants given to airlines to screw everyone else over..

 

[TenEightyOne]

You completely miss the point...in certain gulf monarchies/countries(not all) the standard of living is quite high for a certain portion of the population.

You say I miss the point and then point out something completely different from what you first said. There is no doubt that, as you say, "the standard of living is quite high for a certain portion of the population". What I called Trump out on was saying "even the poorest people live like kings". Because it's complete and utter rubbish.

Do you continue to say that he's actually correct in his comment about the Kuwaiti poor?

Why do you think individuals from extremely poorer neighboring countries pour into places likes Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Oman to name a few? Its not just about the availability of jobs and the generous welfare, but also the fact they enjoy standard of living that is moderately much higher.

If they pour in then they have a skill. Kuwait is far from having open borders. I suspect that in the majority of low-pay workers they have a construction ticket.