[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[CodeRedR51]

No, there really are no others if the polls are to be believed.

Disagree.

 

[Danoff]

No, there really are no others if the polls are to be believed...

I will be voting for the libertarian, as I have in the four preceding elections.

You appear to be contradicting yourself. What you seem to mean is that there are no others that are likely to win. I don't see why people are so obsessed with voting for the person who wins.

 

[Dotini]

According to the MSM political pundits, Trump has a lock on New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, and is a strong 2nd in Iowa. Should Trump actually win Iowa, he will steamroll the whole thing, they suggest.

I hope they're wrong, as that would take some of the fun out of it - and there goes my investment popcorn futures.

 

[Sanji Himura]

According to the MSM political pundits, Trump has a lock on New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, and is a strong 2nd in Iowa. Should Trump actually win Iowa, he will steamroll the whole thing, they suggest.

I hope they're wrong, as that would take some of the fun out of it - and there goes my investment popcorn futures.

I would like to point your attention to the OP in roughly one hour. I will update the RCP averages then.

 

[Biggles]

Spoken like a true liberal. But regardless, even if you were right (which I don't think you are), the establishment US politician is its own special kind of evil.

I'm not sure what this means. That I would support Clinton? That Clinton is a "liberal"? That I'm a "liberal"?

I don't think Clinton IS a "liberal" (depending on what you think that word really means). She's a quintessential centrist, establishment politician in my view. Regardless, the US right wing will portray her as a flaming lefty - it's what they do. According to them every Democratic President has been a wild-eyed, gun-grabbing commie.

If "status quo" means a continuation of ruinous wars, unsustainable debt, political corruption and social decay, you are welcome to her. Both parties are guilty, and at the moment, the voters seem to feel that an outsider (or three) is a necessary element in the campaign.

You think that an individual, ANY individual can change that? How quaint! When Obama came to office I'm pretty sure he genuinely intended to bring hope & change ... at the very least to the history of US involvement in the Middle East conflicts. The massive inertia in the US financial & economic system & the strength of the military/industrial complex makes that almost impossible to achieve. There is a difference between the Obama administration's actions & that of the NeoCons running the Bush administration, however. You haven't seen Obama plunging headlong into a full-scale war the way Bush did.

I'm not a libertarian, but even if a libertarian were to be elected President (which clearly isn't going to happen), how much success do you think he/she would have changing things in the US?

 

[Sanji Himura]

You haven't seen Obama plunging headlong into a full-scale war the way Bush did.

Just watch what is going on in Saudi Arabia within this election cycle. He will find a way to bring us into that war, even if it is to protect Iran (which I have no legitimate evidence that would happen).

EDIT: For @Dotini, here are some General Election averages for you:
Source: RCP Averages
Note: I assume that a margin of error is ± 4%.

Clinton: 45.6%
Trump: 40.8%
Spread: Clinton by 4.8%

Clinton: 45.0%
Cruz: 45.0%
Spread: Tie (Within Margin of Error)

Clinton: 44.0%
Rubio: 45.3%
Spread: Rubio by 1.3% (Within Margin of Error)

Clinton: 45.8%
Carson: 45.3%
Spread: Clinton by .5% (Within Margin of Error)

Clinton: 45.3%
Bush: 44.0%
Spread: Clinton by 1.3% (Within Margin of Error)

Clinton: 44.7%
Christie: 44.0%
Spread: Clinton by .7% (within Margin of Error)

Clinton: 46.5%
Kasich: 39.0%
Spread: Clinton by 7.5%

Clinton: 46.5%
Paul: 42.5%
Spread: Clinton by 4% (within Margin of Error)

Clinton: 45.2%
Fiorina: 43.4%
Spread: Clinton by 1.8%

For comparison:

Sanders: 44.3%
Trump: 42.3%
Spread: Sanders by 2% (within Margin of Error)

Sanders: 45.0%
Cruz: 41.7%
Spread: Sanders by 3.3% (within Margin of Error)

Sanders: 43.0%
Rubio: 44.0%
Spread: Rubio by 1% (within Margin of Error)

Conclusion: Perception is key for a politician. While Kasich, Bush, and Christie are perceived to be establishment candidates, and Trump is perceived to be a loon, all of the Republican candidates but Trump and Kasich are within the margin of error when against Clinton, and against Sanders nearly the same result. All of the candidates mentioned are within any perceivable Margin of Error. The only candidate that is actually leading in the polls against both Clinton and Sanders is actually Rubio.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not sure what this means. That I would support Clinton? That Clinton is a "liberal"? That I'm a "liberal"?

I don't think Clinton IS a "liberal" (depending on what you think that word really means). She's a quintessential centrist, establishment politician in my view. Regardless, the US right wing will portray her as a flaming lefty - it's what they do. According to them every Democratic President has been a wild-eyed, gun-grabbing commie.

Yea, she's a lefty. She just doesn't look like a lefty to lefties. Obama, btw, is also a lefty.

You think that an individual, ANY individual can change that? How quaint! When Obama came to office I'm pretty sure he genuinely intended to bring hope & change ... at the very least to the history of US involvement in the Middle East conflicts. The massive inertia in the US financial & economic system & the strength of the military/industrial complex makes that almost impossible to achieve. There is a difference between the Obama administration's actions & that of the NeoCons running the Bush administration, however. You haven't seen Obama plunging headlong into a full-scale war the way Bush did.

I'm not a libertarian, but even if a libertarian were to be elected President (which clearly isn't going to happen), how much success do you think he/she would have changing things in the US?

It's not really the point. The point is not whether you can change it on your own, but whether you do your part to change it.

 

[huskeR32]

No, he was five times worse.

This reads like a five-year-old said it. What does "five times worse" look like? How do you quantify that?

Just watch what is going on in Saudi Arabia within this election cycle. He will find a way to bring us into that war, even if it is to protect Iran (which I have no legitimate evidence that would happen).

Then why say it? What does nutty nonsense like this add to the discussion?

Why are conservatives so fond of passing off speculation about Obama as if it has any bearing on reality?

 

[Sanji Himura]

This reads like a five-year-old said it. What does "five times worse" look like? How do you quantify that?



Then why say it? What does nutty nonsense like this add to the discussion?

Why are conservatives so fond of passing off speculation about Obama as if it has any bearing on reality?

All I'm saying is that watch current events. Oil is the world's economy now, and securing that resource is a vital part in any modern military strategy. Doesn't leftists like to blame Bush 43 for the issues going on in Iraq right now because he "invaded the country for oil?" Just watch, six months from now, the shoe will be on Obama's foot for getting involved in the Saudi Arabia squabble.

 

[Biggles]

Yea, she's a lefty. She just doesn't look like a lefty to lefties. Obama, btw, is also a lefty.

Ah ... I see. Clinton is an establishment politician &, as is commonly acknowledged, the establishment in the US is wildly left-wing. Got it.

No, he was five times worse.

Really, "five" times worse? Were you not around at the time of the Iraq war? "Shock & Awe", 250,000 American troops on the ground (tens of thousands from other countries), hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, 4,500 US soldiers killed, tens of thousands wounded, costs to the US estimated between 1 & 3 trillion dollars.

Just watch what is going on in Saudi Arabia within this election cycle. He will find a way to bring us into that war, even if it is to protect Iran (which I have no legitimate evidence that would happen).

I'm not sure what this means. Did you miss out some words?

 

[Biggles]

Why are conservatives so fond of passing off speculation about Obama as if it has any bearing on reality?

It's an "alternate reality".

 

[huskeR32]

All I'm saying is that watch current events.

I do. And that's what I'm asking you to do as well. React to what actually happens, not what the Fox fearmongers want you to think is going to happen.

Oil is the world's economy now, and securing that resource is a vital part in any modern military strategy. Doesn't leftists like to blame Bush 43 for the issues going on in Iraq right now because he "invaded the country for oil?"

As I recall, most "leftist" anger was not about why he went there, rather that he knowingly lied about it.

Just watch, six months from now, the shoe will be on Obama's foot for getting involved in the Saudi Arabia squabble.

Again, how about we actually wait and see what happens?

 

[Sanji Himura]

As I recall, most "leftist" anger was not about why he went there, rather that he knowingly lied about it.

True, but there are many in social media that blamed him for that reason.

Also for the record, I don't watch FOX, despite the fact that I'm a republican. I try to get my news from sources from both sides.

 

[FoolKiller]

Obama's war policy looks better than Bush's on paper, but you don't get a pass when you use a double strike policy to kill first responders and family, bomb a hospital and kill 8 doctors from Doctors Without Borders, and kill more children than all school shootings during your time in office combined.

Nor do you get a pass when you get us involved in multiple countries than the initial war had us in and offer aid to the same guys who fled Iraq and are pissed at us.

Obama took Bush's war, slapped a more palatable coat of paint on it, and then grew it into something even bigger.

 

[Swagger897]

Oil is the world's economy now

Wow, really, I never would have guessed. Looks like not much hasn't changed since the 1800s.

and securing that resource is a vital part in any modern military strategy.

No, it's leverage. I holds no purpose other than leverage to wage a war. Otherwise, we'd just blow them up with bombs...

Doesn't leftists like to blame Bush 43 for the issues going on in Iraq right now because he "invaded the country for oil?

I'm sorry, but what? You're trying to defend someone who did just that but you're saying that we're saying he didn't?

Whaaaaa?

Just watch, six months from now, the shoe will be on Obama's foot for getting involved in the Saudi Arabia squabble.

Six months till what exactly? What sort of world ending apocalypse is coming that didn't pan out too well in 2012?

... not what the Fox fearmongers want you to think is going to happen.

+1

but there are many in social media that blamed him

Good to know we trust the same sources that tell us how stinky a bathroom is...

and then grew it into something even bigger.

I don't think anyone is denying that. I think what people are trying to do is point fingers at the person who is responsible for it, but also cover their tail by making educated guess at who it should be.

In the end, it's still Bush's fault. He wanted in, we went in. He wanted out, Obama over watched for him to come out. And now to point the finger at a law signed before 2008 is ridiculous.

 

[Biggles]

As I recall, most "leftist" anger was not about why he went there, rather that he knowingly lied about it.

I'm still not sure why Bush invaded Iraq (even more hard to understand why Blair went along). And I'm not sure that Bush himself "knowingly lied" about it. Somewhere in that NeoCon cabal they concocted a narrative to justify it, a narrative that was wrong in practically all its details.

Obama's war policy looks better than Bush's on paper, but you don't get a pass when you use a double strike policy to kill first responders and family, bomb a hospital and kill 8 doctors from Doctors Without Borders, and kill more children than all school shootings during your time in office combined.

Nor do you get a pass when you get us involved in multiple countries than the initial war had us in and offer aid to the same guys who fled Iraq and are pissed at us.

Obama took Bush's war, slapped a more palatable coat of paint on it, and then grew it into something even bigger.

Do you really believe this?

I think the Bush administration started with the assumption that invading Iraq was a good idea & used 911 as a pretext for proceeding. They genuinely believed they could "control" the outcome & were taken aback when things descended into chaos.

I think Obama came to office genuinely believing that he could & would end US military involvement in the Middle East & when events in Libya & then Syria & Yemen & practically everywhere else in the region spiraled out of control he felt pressured to intervene. If the war is "bigger", which is highly debatable", it's not because Obama chose to make it bigger. Clearly, Obama's hawkish detractors believe it's "bigger" because he didn't intervene enough.

There isn't a US President in living memory who hasn't presided over foreign wars & multiple civilian deaths in those wars, but that doesn't mean that there aren't differences between them.

 

[huskeR32]

I'm still not sure why Bush invaded Iraq (even more hard to understand why Blair went along). And I'm not sure that Bush himself "knowingly lied" about it. Somewhere in that NeoCon cabal they concocted a narrative to justify it, a narrative that was wrong on practically in all its details.

I'm not sure either. I was not stating that as a fact on its own merits, rather I was suggesting that SanjiHimura wasn't really on the mark as far as what "leftists" were angry about at the time.

I probably should have stated it thusly:

As I recall, most "leftist" anger was not about why he went there; they were angry because they felt he knowingly lied about it.

Mea culpa.

 

[ukfan758]

Yea, she's a lefty. She just doesn't look like a lefty to lefties. Obama, btw, is also a lefty.




It's not really the point. The point is not whether you can change it on your own, but whether you do your part to change it.

Ah ... I see. Clinton is an establishment politician &, as is commonly acknowledged, the establishment in the US is wildly left-wing. Got it.



Really, "five" times worse? Were you not around at the time of the Iraq war? "Shock & Awe", 250,000 American troops on the ground (tens of thousands from other countries), hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, 4,500 US soldiers killed, tens of thousands wounded, costs to the US estimated between 1 & 3 trillion dollars.



I'm not sure what this means. Did you miss out some words?

Depending on a person's political spectrum as well as comparing the American spectrum vs the world, what a person defines as left wing, right wing, and center will vary.

To an American "conservative", they might see themselves as just the right but a person like Hillary Clinton as Far Left and progressives as extreme left. An American "centralist" like me might believe that conservatives are far right and a person like Hillary is slight left and Sanders is mid to far left. A progressive might view conservatives as extreme right , Hillary as a centralist to slight left, and themselves as left.

In a world spectrum, I think that most Democats would be on the right and progressives as center.

 

[FoolKiller]

Do you really believe this?

I wasn't typing it out for a laugh.

I think Obama came to office genuinely believing that he could & would end US military involvement in the Middle East & when events in Libya & then Syria & Yemen & practically everywhere else in the region spiraled out of control he felt pressured to intervene.

Getting involved in someone else's civil war is a bad idea. A mistake we should have learned before, but instead our leaders choose to perpetuate the "they hate us cause they ain't us" myth. We started down this path decades ago and have come full circle to making the same mistakes and claiming we took the better, more peaceful route.

And what thought process says, "The region is destabilizing. Quick, send in weapons to the guys we hate least and drop a bunch of bombs. That should help?"

If the war is "bigger", which is highly debatable", it's not because Obama chose to make it bigger. Clearly, Obama's hawkish detractors believe it's "bigger" because he didn't intervene enough.

We are now involved in three more countries and giving the terrorist group of the moment even more recruiting tools. We shoot, so they shoot, so we shoot, so they shoot.

There isn't a US President in living memory who hasn't presided over foreign wars & multiple civilian deaths in those wars, but that doesn't mean that there aren't differences between them.

They didn't all attack a hospital, which is a war crime.

As a side note, Doctors Without Borders are pulling out of the city due to the air strike. There's no telling how many more people will die because of a loss of healthcare.

For the record, for the first time in history a Nobel Peace Prize winner attacked a Noble Peace Prize winner. That can be his legacy. He brought the US a new healthcare system and killed healthcare workers in another country and made them leave the city.

 

[Danoff]

In a world spectrum, I think that most Democats would be on the right and progressives as center.

The United States is already a socialist nation. Hillary would make the US more socialist by expanding government healthcare beyond our current state (which is already larger than England's), increasing corporate taxes which are already some of the highest in the world, and creating more "progressive" tax policies in an already heavily progressive tax system.

I think by any measure, she's left.

 

[Biggles]

I wasn't typing it out for a laugh.


Getting involved in someone else's civil war is a bad idea. A mistake we should have learned before, but instead our leaders choose to perpetuate the "they hate us cause they ain't us" myth. We started down this path decades ago and have come full circle to making the same mistakes and claiming we took the better, more peaceful route.

And what thought process says, "The region is destabilizing. Quick, send in weapons to the guys we hate least and drop a bunch of bombs. That should help?"


We are now involved in three more countries and giving the terrorist group of the moment even more recruiting tools. We shoot, so they shoot, so we shoot, so they shoot.


They didn't all attack a hospital, which is a war crime.

As a side note, Doctors Without Borders are pulling out of the city due to the air strike. There's no telling how many more people will die because of a loss of healthcare.

For the record, for the first time in history a Nobel Peace Prize winner attacked a Noble Peace Prize winner. That can be his legacy. He brought the US a new healthcare system and killed healthcare workers in another country and made them leave the city.

The hostility to Obama from the far right is so absurdly over-the-top it's hard to take any of it seriously.

You don't think hospitals were bombed in the Second World War, or the Korean War, or the Vietnam War or any one of the other military engagements the US has been involved in?

I would ask you again: do you think Obama came to office with the intention of getting further involved in the Middle East conflicts?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Hillary would make the US more socialist by expanding government healthcare beyond our current state (which is already larger than England's)

In what way? That's a genuine question, not a TEO tripwire

 

[Johnnypenso]

The hostility to Obama from the far right is so absurdly over-the-top it's hard to take any of it seriously.

You don't think hospitals were bombed in the Second World War, or the Korean War, or the Vietnam War or any one of the other military engagements the US has been involved in?

I would ask you again: do you think Obama came to office with the intention of getting further involved in the Middle East conflicts?

Did Bush come to office with that intent? Did any President ever come to power with the intent of going to war or escalating one? Can it ever be proven one or the other anyway?

 

[Swagger897]

I'm sure he only wanted to continue the status quo set forth from his dad... And that's the fear a lot of people have towards Jeb.

 

[Biggles]

Did Bush come to office with that intent?

I'm not sure about Bush, but I think it's pretty clear that the NeoCons he surrounded himself with were looking for an opportunity to go into Iraq to get rid of Saddam.

Did any President ever come to power with the intent of going to war or escalating one? Can it ever be proven one or the other anyway?

I would say yes. During the Cold War pretty much every President came to office expecting to engage in warfare against the Soviet Union, although due to MAD it took the form of proxy wars & covert action rather than direct confrontation. The US intervened around the world to help overthrow governments that were perceived as being too "leftist" (I guess that would include practically all of them by Danoffs definition) & prop up dictators that were perceived as being "anti-communist". This included Iran & Afghanistan, where the seeds of present problems were sowed.

 

[FoolKiller]

The hostility to Obama from the far right is so absurdly over-the-top it's hard to take any of it seriously.

Yes, because I am sooooooo far right that I wrapped around and defended gay rights, oppose militarized police, and opposed The Patriot Act. We've been here long enough for you to know me better than that.

You don't think hospitals were bombed in the Second World War, or the Korean War, or the Vietnam War or any one of the other military engagements the US has been involved in?

Did you know there are international rules on when an off-limits target becomes a good target, and what process must be followed before attacking? See, there is a difference between a legitimate target and a war crime.

Plus, war sucks. He claims over and over the drones are a better form of war (like that's a thing) and have been hiding casualty counts while they have been caught purposely using a double tap strategy and continue with war, calling casualties collateral damage. I get it, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Where's my damn omelet?

I would ask you again: do you think Obama came to office with the intention of getting further involved in the Middle East conflicts?

Politicians lie, so I have no idea. I like to think the best of people and think they have the best intentions, but that burns me a lot. Bush campaigned on no nation building. He was showing no intent to pursue a war until after 9/11.

In the last election Obama and Romney's final debate was basically them debating who would be more willing to attack Iran. His administration was war hawking about Iran.

Whatever he started as, he became Bush. Unless he accidentally tripped and hit the "Expand War" button his intent at the beginning does not outweigh his actual actions.

I never said Obama was a warmonger. I pointed out that he hasn't handled things better than Bush. It's gotten bigger, not smaller. He got involved in internal fights in other countries, something he would have protested against if it were Bush.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I pointed out that he hasn't handled things better than Bush. It's gotten bigger, not smaller. He got involved in internal fights in other countries, something he would have protested against if it were Bush.

It's generally accepted that the Second Iraq War was a major cause of the current situation in Iraq and Syria, so I think it's a little unfair to criticise Obama's handling of a situation created by Bush. That doesn't exonerate Obama of wrongdoing, but the question has to be asked - if Bush had handled the Second Iraq War better, what situation would Obama be in politically now?

 

[Sanji Himura]

It's generally accepted that the Second Iraq War was a major cause of the current situation in Iraq and Syria, so I think it's a little unfair to criticise Obama's handling of a situation created by Bush. That doesn't exonerate Obama of wrongdoing, but the question has to be asked - if Bush had handled the Second Iraq War better, what situation would Obama be in politically now?

Which is not true because of the fact that ISIS was actually born in Syria(a Obama hot spot), THEN expanded into Iraq. Had Obama not kept his campaign promise and pulled US Troops out of Iraq(completed by 2012), there would already be a fighting force
in Iraq fighting them.

 

[Dennisch]

Had Obama not kept his campaign promise

"chemical weapons is where we draw the line!"

 

[Danoff]

In what way? That's a genuine question, not a TEO tripwire

I'm not sure which part of that statement you're asking about, but I'll guess.

24% of the US budget goes to socialized medicine. $836 Billion dollars.
18% of UK budget goes to socialized medicine. $200 Billion dollars.


Beyond that, I get a bit hazy as to the UK's budget. But here's what I can gather:
36% of the US budget goes to entitlement programs.
35% of England's budget goes to entitlement programs

Sources:
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html

If you want to break it down per capita, you can argue with me. But the bottom line is we tax similarly (not quite as much) and have a bit more socialized spending by percentage.