• Our friends from the Johto Times are hosting a favorite Pokémon poll - and we'd love for you to participate! Click here for information on how to vote for your favorites!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

The Huffington Post said it best, I think:

Editor's Note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.
Click to expand...

His rhetoric is quite clear, he is anything but rational, tolerant, and loving and to suggest that he is rational, tolerant, and loving with a genuine straight face is actually insane.
 
It's really sad when Trump is actually slightly better than Cruz. Rubio is too much of a lightweight though.
 
Ehhh I really don't see Trump being able to carry Ohio, Florida and Iowa in the general, him being a Mexican and overall minority hater probably won't translate well in Florida, and my state, Ohio, has been fairly blue the last two elections. Big urban, diverse populations in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, etc, usually propel the state blue. Plus, Hilary has several key union endorsements that would be beneficial in the "rust belt" states like PA, OH, IA, which should give her the edge over Bernie at least, and I would imagine major union endorsements would give her an edge over Trump, who as of right now actually has no major endorsements from any GOP politicians or donors. As for the map, the electoral count for Bernie is actually greater than Obama's '08 margin of victory by roughly 20+ electoral votes, he won with 332 IIRC. I'm not complaining if that's how '16 shakes out to be, but I'm quite skeptical of those numbers, Sanders would have to eclipse the democratic wave from 2008 and I don't forsee him doing that.

BTW expect the Romney endorsement of Rubio annnnny day now. The establishment realizes now that Trump won't go away and the only way to not follow Trump into oblivion is to prop Rubio up as the best alternative the other faction of the GOP has to beat Trump and get to the general to face Hilary. Presumably.
 
Big question: Polls indicate that more and more people favour a Sanders over a Clinton nomination nationally. Yet the state polls seems to indicate that Sanders will lose most of the primaries on Super Tuesday. What's going on there? Is most of his national support coming from states that hold primaries after Super Tuesday?
 
Kanzler said:
Big question: Polls indicate that more and more people favour a Sanders over a Clinton nomination nationally. Yet the state polls seems to indicate that Sanders will lose most of the primaries on Super Tuesday. What's going on there? Is most of his national support coming from states that hold primaries after Super Tuesday?
Click to expand...

You can win the popular vote but lose the delagte count just like you can win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote in the general election. In fact, Hillary won the popular vote, but lost the delegate count in 2008.

I really think Trump is the second best candidate. I was for Rand Paul before he dropped out. GOP voters need to be in open rebellion against the establishment for them to stop taking us for granted. And Trump will unite the nation and heal the divisive wounds that Obama has caused.
 
Senate Republican Leaders Say They Won't Meet With an Obama Supreme Court Nominee

So Mitch McConnell and the Republican Majority in the Judiciary Committee has decided to not even give a hearing or talk to any nominee that President Obama puts forward.

This seriously brings into question this, which was one of the comments on this article:

"How, however, should we define "during an election"? Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy on April 12, 2015. Does that mean that for almost half of a president's term, he should not nominate supreme court justices? Or does this restriction only apply when there are official party nominees? Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet. At what point in an election, exactly, does a president lose his mandate to govern?"
Click to expand...

The more tactful way to have done this was just drag out the Senate hearings and vote against the Justice nominee, but hey, I guess they can't do that because it's more than likely Obama would nominate a moderate like Sri Srinivasan which would have been an even more grandiose spectacle seeing someone who got a unanimous confirmation just a few years ago be declared "extremist"
 
I'll agree with Clinton (gasp) that this primary circus does not count as "during an election". When both parties have nominated a candidate and the general election is underway, then I would consider that "during an election". Primaries are run and held by the parties, so in no instance would I consider this "during an election". This is the tailgating party to a football game. The pre-show to the Superbowl, if you will. I'd also say that presidents are elected for four years and they can act during those four years. You wouldn't call for Obama to delay action against Iran or North Korea, so this falls under his duties as well and he has the right to put forth nominees.

This is typical politics though - if you think this is a magic Republican trick suddenly happening, it happens all the time on both sides of the aisle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeWWFm7NVqk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8

Now, what I will say, however, is that Biden's comments there don't exactly mean they'll refuse to look at nominees, but only until after the November election. I'd also recognize the point that Schumer is saying he will not support a far-right nominee, while Republicans today are saying NO to any nominee.

If Obama can't nominate someone by the time the general election begins, I would maybe agree with the idea that he wait. After all, he still has Nov - Jan to get a nominee through (yes, yes, call it a laughable scenario - Republicans would never let that happen if their nominee is being sworn in as the next President), but I would say that he has every right to nominate someone NOW when we're barely into the primaries.

It's far too early into his final year to really argue any other point. Just remember that this is a talking point for both sides in many elections. It's not a sudden Republican move.
 
Oh of course it is a "both sides do it" argument. The difference is this time it has established a precedent on saying NO to anything even before any nominee is put forward at all. I'd understand if Obama had already put out a nominee and it was a liberal version of Scalia that Republicans would be apoplectic to, but no this essentially means that a President is not even allowed to be given the time of day almost a year left to his term.

I just feel that this legislature doesn't even act in good faith. I remember when the Dems had the House in 2006 - 2008 that governance was still done in an appropriate measure instead of things being No No No all the time.
 
Hey guys, anybody want a Trump? Any? Nevadans do! By a lot. He's over 45%. Considering how 55% of caucusgoers were "angry" with politics, I'm surprised he didn't get even more votes. Ah well.

Cruz and Rubio continue to be virtually tied for everything: votes, delegates, money spent... the only difference are "states carried", where Cruz still wins 1-0, and "establishment support", where Rubio is steamrolling the competition. Of course, in a year when 55% of voters hate the establishment, I'm not sure whether that counts as a feature or as a bug.

Of course, my favourite stat of the caucus is... these few hundred people who walked to their loaction to vote for dropped-out candidates. Bless their soul. Finally Rand beat Bush.

R. Paul 149
J. Bush 54
C. Christie 46
M. Huckabee 18
C. Fiorina 16
R. Santorum 8
 
At the rate we're going, it's Trump's nomination to lose. The worst (or best?) thing is that this is mostly an act. He's downright intelligent when he wants to be and is worth billions, he's gone before committees on the economy and real estate, and he's been in the business/political game for years. The blunt behavior and offensive behavior isn't how he's made money, but it's how he's winning this primary so far. The stubbornness of Rubio/Cruz/Kasich/Carson to all stick in for this is nuts when you consider that their numbers combined could beat Trump - but only BARELY.

Trump currently has 45.9% of the vote, Rubio + Cruz only equal 45.3%. That's unbelievable.

It's impressive (or scary?) that he's capable of being such a CLEAR winner after so many attacks (to and from), so little money spent, and so much resentment from the mainstream/establishment. He's the Bernie Sanders of the right in a nuttier shell - anti-establishment and unfunded by corporate interests. It's a bit crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sun
In a regular election, Trump would be considered the nominee by now. 3 straight pluralities.

But of course this isn't a regular election, he's just the "front-runner" as whatever's left of "moderate" establishment Republicanism tries to rally behind Rubio.

Though in the end I'd rather have Trump than Cruz as the Repub nominee. Cruz is just an outright scary ideologue.
 
Ivysaur said:
Hey guys, anybody want a Trump? Any? Nevadans do! By a lot. He's over 45%. Considering how 55% of caucusgoers were "angry" with politics, I'm surprised he didn't get even more votes. Ah well.
Click to expand...

Seeing as he has a casino there that employs people and drives business, I don't really see it as a surprise that he has a lot more votes that the rest of the Republican candidates.
 
Trump won Hispanics by 15%. He is clearly the candidate to draw minorities in. Independent, rational, tolerant. The establishment's heads are spinning.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
Trump won Hispanics by 15%. He is clearly the candidate to draw minorities in. Independent, rational, tolerant. The establishment's heads are spinning.
Click to expand...

And do you know what is the most amazing thing? That, at least within the Republican Party, that's completely true. Overall data say democrats and independents dislike him by a lot, and he would lose the minority vote in a landslide (like any other republican) but, within republicans themselves? He's winning them accross the board. He's not a "southern" candidate. He's not a "religious" guy. He's not the "young" candidate, or the "super rich" candidate. He's got balanced amounts of support in all groups, demographics, whatever description you want to use to divide the republican base, he's winning it or, at the very least, being a close second. The party can't really make a "us vs Trump" pitch because Trump's coalition includes a bit of everybody. It's amazing.
 
Last edited:
Klippy said:
At the rate we're going, it's Trump's nomination to lose. The worst (or best?) thing is that this is mostly an act. He's downright intelligent when he wants to be and is worth billions, he's gone before committees on the economy and real estate, and he's been in the business/political game for years. The blunt behavior and offensive behavior isn't how he's made money, but it's how he's winning this primary so far. The stubbornness of Rubio/Cruz/Kasich/Carson to all stick in for this is nuts when you consider that their numbers combined could beat Trump - but only BARELY.

Trump currently has 45.9% of the vote, Rubio + Cruz only equal 45.3%. That's unbelievable.

It's impressive (or scary?) that he's capable of being such a CLEAR winner after so many attacks (to and from), so little money spent, and so much resentment from the mainstream/establishment. He's the Bernie Sanders of the right in a nuttier shell - anti-establishment and unfunded by corporate interests. It's a bit crazy.
Click to expand...

The interesting bit is that Trump is vulnerable and can be beat, but Rubio and Cruz would rather attack each other and Carson and Kasich insist on sticking around when there's clearly no way in hell for them to win the nomination, let alone win a state. The longer Cruz and Rubio fight each other and the longer the other two stay in the race, the more likely a Trump GOP nomination becomes, and, the more likely a brokered convention becomes which would be an unprecedented disaster for the party so close to the election. If nobody gets tough on Trump before/slightly after Super Tuesday, he will probably get the nomination, which is as astounding as it is frightening.
 
But, Live, is "getting tough on Trump" the solution? Everybody with a mouth has come out saying very clearly that they don't want Trump. The National Review made an entire issue begging not to vote for him. In fact, I'll have Ezra Klein explain it: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/24/11103704/the-republican-party-is-broken

I'll admit that there is some truth when you say that some people refuse to fight him because they still believe he's just going to disappear overnight. But it's not like he's just going his merry way either. The sad truth is that Republicans "are voting with their middle fingers". It doesn't matter how much sense Trump's policies make, whether he was pals with the Clintons, or his ideas on marriage or abortion. He's the "press one to flip off the Establishment" option and that's what really matters.

Trump is vulnerable but Rubio is hardly an extraordinary candidate -his own endorsers can't think of anything relevant he's ever done-, and Trump can easily lock over a third of the required delegates with under a third of the states voting in two weeks and a half. I said last summer that he was likely to win... and this Saturday, I'll be handing in an article to my newspaper in which I essentially explain why he's a shoe-in by now. Either Rubio eekes out a win in Virginia, or...
 
Last edited:
Random but related question: I could probably research this myself, but it might be worth a discussion point or two. Who is Ezra Klein and what is his significance?
 
Kanzler said:
Random but related question: I could probably research this myself, but it might be worth a discussion point or two. Who is Ezra Klein and what is his significance?
Click to expand...

He's just a journalist/blogger/commentarist who started the vox.com website. Just saying he wrote an article on that same topic just yesterday!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top