[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Sanji Himura]

Fox News is reporting that Donald Trump is finally ready to spend some advertising cash. $25 million at a rate of $2 million per week in attack ads.

 

[Biggles]

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.

I can't believe you're (semi) seriously suggesting this Dotini. The fact that someone "doesn't owe anybody anything" does not necessarily make them a good candidate for President. There are endless historical examples of individuals fitting that description who made terrible leaders. And "bombastic, pompous, arrogant, narcissistic, and tacky" are not qualities that suggest that Trump would make a successful President. His constant talk of "making America great again", picking on ethnic & religious minorities as scapegoats & his cultivation of a kind of cult of the personality is the closest thing I've seen to fascism in an American Presidential candidate in my memory.

Trump has no concrete, thought-out policies on anything, just politically incorrect thrown-out statements that appeal to the anger & disillusionment of a section of the population - predominantly white, older & under-educated. Trump likes to talk about "winning" - he may have been successful in real estate, given a huge leg up by his wealthy, privileged upbringing, but being President of the US isn't about "winning", it's about having the ability to interact with a wide range of political, economic & military adversaries at home & abroad. Those adversaries are not simply going slink off when he tells them: "you're fired!" Going into office with the expectation that you're going to "win" all the time is a recipe for disaster.

Trump's life history & his personality make him singularly poorly prepared for the Presidency. I think, when it comes to it, the majority of American voters will see that.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Trump's life history & his personality make him singularly poorly prepared for the Presidency. I think, when it comes to it, the majority of American voters will see that.

Most of my family are voting for Sanders.

 

[Dotini]

I can't believe you're (semi) seriously suggesting this Dotini. The fact that someone "doesn't owe anybody anything" does not necessarily make them a good candidate for President. There are endless historical examples of individuals fitting that description who made terrible leaders. And "bombastic, pompous, arrogant, narcissistic, and tacky" are not qualities that suggest that Trump would make a successful President. His constant talk of "making America great again", picking on ethnic & religious minorities as scapegoats & his cultivation of a kind of cult of the personality is the closest thing I've seen to fascism in an American Presidential candidate in my memory.

Trump has no concrete, thought-out policies on anything, just politically incorrect thrown-out statements that appeal to the anger & disillusionment of a section of the population - predominantly white, older & under-educated. Trump likes to talk about "winning" - he may have been successful in real estate, given a huge leg up by his wealthy, privileged upbringing, but being President of the US isn't about "winning", it's about having the ability to interact with a wide range of political, economic & military adversaries at home & abroad. Those adversaries are not simply going slink off when he tells them: "you're fired!" Going into office with the expectation that you're going to "win" all the time is a recipe for disaster.

Trump's life history & his personality make him singularly poorly prepared for the Presidency. I think, when it comes to it, the majority of American voters will see that.

Totally agree on just about all you've said.

But I'm trying to be realistic about the dynamics of our current democracy, explain what is underneath this prairie fire, and prepare myself and others for the possible outcome.

IMO, in the eventuality that Trump becomes president, it would not be a total disaster. He does have a few redeeming qualities that we can be pretty sure of due to his long record.
- Believes in women's rights, abortion.
- Believes in affirmative action for blacks.
- Might well be the candidate least likely to start WWIII, which in the end is really the most important thing.

 

[Biggles]

Totally agree on just about all you've said.

But I'm trying to be realistic about the dynamics of our current democracy, explain what is underneath this prairie fire, and prepare myself and others for the possible outcome.

I think the dynamics are: an outspoken, well-known TV personality with racist, sexist, xenophobic & just plain stupid views that correspond with the feelings of a certain sector of the US population. But that sector is not close to being a majority of US voters. Additionally. no one has seriously attacked Trump yet - Republicans have been scared to alienate Trump supporters who represent a significant chunk of their base & Democrats are holding their fire while Trump runs amok within the GOP establishment.

At some point the skeletons in Trump's closet will start to see the light of day: the absurd, the contradictory, even the pro-democrat, positions he has taken in the past & his support will weaken. Cruz will start to attack him from the right, Rubio will attack him with the weight of the GOP establishment behind him, the Democrats will wait & then attack what emerges from the wreckage.

It won't be pretty, but it will be entertaining.

 

[ukfan758]

This just crossed my mind, if Clinton wins the democrat nomination, does she have a good chance of capturing the Upper South?

When both Bill Clinton and Jimmie Carter ran for president (both of whom came from the South in terms of their political spotlight), they saw positive results in the region.

Carter 1976:

***(Reagan won by a landslide in 1980)***

Clinton 1992:

Clinton 1996:

When Democrats come from the southeast (or get their fame there), southerners seem to vote for them more than a Republican as long as the candidate is a conservative democrat. If Clinton can appeal to "Southern Values" like her husband did, I think that she could easily win a few states in the upper south.

The map below depicts what states have voted for Clinton in '96 and Obama in '12, one or the other, the opposite, or neither (voted Republican both times). The southern states of Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Louisiana vote for a Southern candidate and also voted for Clinton in '92 and Carter in '76.

One of the states that I think she has a high chance to win is the one I live in, Kentucky. There are more registered democrats in our state than are Republicans, Louisville and Lexington are expanding rapidly which typically means more Democrat voters, and the values shared between Kentucky and Arkansas are very similar, which will make it very easy for Clinton.

The map I have created shows Clinton having a chance in the upper south and securing most of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast with the Republicans getting the central US and Deep South. Florida is neutral due to unpredictability.

TLDR: Clinton has a good chance of getting the upper south due her achieving her political fame there which could mean serious trouble for Republicans.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think the dynamics are: an outspoken, well-known TV personality with racist, sexist, xenophobic & just plain stupid views that correspond with the feelings of a certain sector of the US population. But that sector is not close to being a majority of US voters. Additionally. no one has seriously attacked Trump yet - Republicans have been scared to alienate Trump supporters who represent a significant chunk of their base & Democrats are holding their fire while Trump runs amok within the GOP establishment.

At some point the skeletons in Trump's closet will start to see the light of day: the absurd, the contradictory, even the pro-democrat, positions he has taken in the past & his support will weaken. Cruz will start to attack him from the right, Rubio will attack him with the weight of the GOP establishment behind him, the Democrats will wait & then attack what emerges from the wreckage.

It won't be pretty, but it will be entertaining.

I think you've been sheltered the last few months. These
skeletons have already come out and the Donald has already dealt with them as only he can. Essentially it seems people mostly give him a pass on anything too bombastic and choose instead to focus on the bigger picture. It's a frightening prospect for the Democrats really, a Teflon GOP candidate who can't be taken down by by mere binders of women or dogs on the roof.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@ukfan758 One flaw in that argument. Hillary Clinton is from Chicago, not Arkansas. She rose to national prominence while first lady of Arkansas, granted, but it still doesn't dispute her Chicago roots.

 

[Biggles]

I think you've been sheltered the last few months. These
skeletons have already come out and the Donald has already dealt with them as only he can. Essentially it seems people mostly give him a pass on anything too bombastic and choose instead to focus on the bigger picture. It's a frightening prospect for the Democrats really, a Teflon GOP candidate who can't be taken down by by mere binders of women or dogs on the roof.

Sheltered? I don't think so. Trump's got decades of dubious deals & outrageous & contradictory statements behind him. Hardly any of these have been exposed to date. Why? Because the other Republican candidates haven't seen an advantage to taking him on yet & the Democrats would prefer to see him prosper. Trump's only a Teflon candidate amongst his base of supporters, to everyone else, within the US & abroad, he's a loud-mouthed idiot.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump's only a Teflon candidate amongst his base of supporters, to everyone else, within the US & abroad, he's an loud-mouthed idiot.

Indeed. It's going to be hard to "make America great again" when the international media reports on your antics the same way as they do children who get trapped in skill-testing machines, Russian driving standards, skateboarding dogs and Taiwanese parliamentary brawls.

 

[ukfan758]

@ukfan758 One flaw in that argument. Hillary Clinton is from Chicago, not Arkansas. She rose to national prominence while first lady of Arkansas, granted, but it still doesn't dispute her Chicago roots.

Correct, I was mainly discussing her time from Arkansas, where she got her fame. And I'll edit my post accordingly.

 

[FoolKiller]

One of the states that I think she has a high chance to win is the one I live in, Kentucky. There are more registered democrats in our state than are Republicans, Louisville and Lexington are expanding rapidly which typically means more Democrat voters, and the values shared between Kentucky and Arkansas are very similar, which will make it very easy for Clinton.

Two points:

1) Kentucky Democrats are often nothing like the average Democrat.

2) Democrats haven't won a national election in Kentucky in a long time. Heck, they aren't even winning the gubernatorial contest right now. And if we are to believe those who claim Obama couldn't win here because he was black, then I doubt a woman can.

As an anecdote, many long-time Democrats and previous Hillary supporters that I know aren't too happy about her trying to defend DOMA while at the same time claiming to be the gay rights candidate. That even includes people who wanted to vote for her previously just because she was a woman.

As for your point about her political career beginning in Arkansas, she doesn't look, act, or sound southern. Bill did. Plus, when she ran for senate she went to New York. In southern parlance: She's a Yankee and it shows.

 

[Biggles]

I agree, there's no way that Hillary is seen as "southern".

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sheltered? I don't think so. Trump's got decades of dubious deals & outrageous & contradictory statements behind him. Hardly any of these have been exposed to date. Why? Because the other Republican candidates haven't seen an advantage to taking him on yet & the Democrats would prefer to see him prosper. Trump's only a Teflon candidate amongst his base of supporters, to everyone else, within the US & abroad, he's a loud-mouthed idiot.

He's already paved the way to handle a anything that might come up from his business dealings or previous political slant. The groundwork is already laid if you've been paying attention. I'm pretty sure he watched Mitt fail and learned from it because every little thing that derailed Mitt has slid off Trump like water off a duck's back

 

[ukfan758]

I stand super corrected. I'll vote for her anyway in the election if Bush or fascist Trump are the Republican nominees.

 

[Biggles]

He's already paved the way to handle a anything that might come up from his business dealings or previous political slant. The groundwork is already laid if you've been paying attention. I'm pretty sure he watched Mitt fail and learned from it because every little thing that derailed Mitt has slid off Trump like water off a duck's back

Yes, Johnny, I've been "paying attention" for the last 50 odd years. Trump isn't anything like Mitt Romney & nor, obviously, is his campaign. It may be water off a duck's back with some GOP voters at this point, it won't be when the gloves come off in the GE.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Yes, Johnny, I've been "paying attention" for the last 50 odd years. Trump isn't anything like Mitt Romney & nor, obviously, is his campaign. It may be water off a duck's back with some GOP voters at this point, it won't be when the gloves come off in the GE.

Hillary ain't a saint either. She has her own laundry list of issues stemming from the Clinton Foundation for starters.

 

[Carbonox]

IMO, in the eventuality that Trump becomes president, it would not be a total disaster. He does have a few redeeming qualities that we can be pretty sure of due to his long record.
- Believes in affirmative action for blacks.

If this is a "redeeming quality"...

 

[Danoff]

I stand super corrected. I'll vote for her anyway in the election if Bush or fascist Trump are the Republican nominees.

I don't understand what the republican nominee has to do with whether you think Hillary represents you well. You send a signal with your vote, it should convey your positions. Vote for someone that sends the signal accurately rather than trying to send the signal that you prefer some brand of evil over a different one.

 

[ukfan758]

I don't understand what the republican nominee has to do with whether you think Hillary represents you well. You send a signal with your vote, it should convey your positions. Vote for someone that sends the signal accurately rather than trying to send the signal that you prefer some brand of evil over a different one.

Where did I say Hillary represents me well? I'll answer anyway, she does represent my social stances but not as much on economic. I do not agree with Trump's positions and his horrible comments towards others (look back at all of my posts if you want), nor do I agree with continuing the Bush Dynasty. Those are the only two reasons I would vote for Hillary, if different republican wins, I'll vote for them. I'm sorry that I don't follow the party line.

 

[Swagger897]

Where did I say Hillary represents me well? I'll answer anyway, she does represent my social stances but not as much on economic. I do not agree with Trump's positions and his horrible comments towards others (look back at all of my posts if you want), nor do I agree with continuing the Bush Dynasty. Those are the only two reasons I would vote for Hillary, if different republican wins, I'll vote for them. I'm sorry that I don't follow the party line.

Sorry dude, but picking death by fire or death by ignorance when you can choose to live is not the greatest idea. If you truly feel like no one represents you, don't vote.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If you truly feel like no one represents you, don't vote.

But if you don't vote, then you should give up the right to complain about the government.

 

[Johnnypenso]

But if you don't vote, then you should give up the right to complain about the government.

Why?

 

[ukfan758]

If you truly feel like no one represents you, don't vote.

So being a rational human being by taking a step back and reviewing all of the information and then choosing a candidate (even if it means that this said candidate does not one hundred percent align with your political ideology) should mean that you should not vote but always following the party line means you can.

If I were to not vote then as @prisonermonkeys said, I have no right to complain about the government because I never attempted to change things even though I had the opportunity. I vote because I want to participate in our Democratic-Republic and that means for me voting for both sides after reviewing the candidates. In 2008 I voted for Obama and in 2012 I voted for Romney and my vote this year depends on what I said earlier. I'm sorry that I'm not a solid Republican or solid Democrat.

 

[Famine]

So being a rational human being by taking a step back and reviewing all of the information and then choosing a candidate (even if it means that this said candidate does not one hundred percent align with your political ideology) should mean that you should not vote

Or that you should, but not for any of the candidates.

 

[ukfan758]

USA Today year-end power rankings:

 

[Swagger897]

But if you don't vote, then you should give up the right to complain about the government.

Really? So by that standard, people can continue to bitch about anything they do, whether they liked doing it or not.

So being a rational human being by taking a step back and reviewing all of the information and then choosing a candidate (even if it means that this said candidate does not one hundred percent align with your political ideology) should mean that you should not vote but always following the party line means you can.

That's not what I was feeling from you. For the past few pages, and you summarized it in the few posts above, that you have a special dislike towards Trump, and Jeb, and would refuse to vote for them, and prefer to do so by picking Hillary, of which you don't like as much either but you find better.

If you find some aspects/qualities of her to your liking, then by all means choose her, but it sounded like to me you want to keep someone out of office rather than put someone good in (which is what we all should be doing).

I'm sorry that I'm not a solid Republican or solid Democrat.

Please don't be one of those types either, picking a party and sticking to it with till death.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Really? So by that standard, people can continue to bitch about anything they do, whether they liked doing it or not.

No, what he means is if you don't vote, then you had no input into the democratic process. If you had no input into the democratic process, then you can't complain about the choices that the, admittedly small, percentage of the population who do vote made in their elected officials.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, what he means is if you don't vote, then you had no input into the democratic process. If you had no input into the democratic process, then you can't complain about the choices that the, admittedly small, percentage of the population who do vote made in their elected officials.

Yes you can, that's democracy for you. The same applies if you choose to enter a spoiled vote (where applicable).

 

[huskeR32]

It's a frightening prospect for the Democrats really

I really don't think it is. @Biggles is right, once the rest of the GOP field realizes they can't tiptoe around their base any longer, they'll take Trump down pretty quickly.

What does worry me about all of this is that far-right fringe candidates like Cruz can use Trump to make themselves look more palatable by comparison.