2016 Primaries

This is already the most bat-dookie insane think I've seen since I've been aware of politics. An ex-spy chief and war hero being defeated by a southern Democrat in 1992 (all I remember of that one was HW didn't like broccoli and I did, and the other guy played the sax like Lisa Simpson) then won reelection and received oral sex and was impeached (10-year old me "What's sex? Is oral sex SEX?") A guy winning when more people voted for the other guy, that guy getting elected again because why change leaders during a war against a country not responsible for an attack that happened under his watch? Followed by him completely borking a hurricane response and muddling through an economic collapse, a one-term Senator (who's black!!! but half black and African-black, not African-American) getting elected against a war hero who chose a crazy person as a running mate who quit her job and had a reality show, a Republican governor of a liberal state turning hard right and failing to defeat him, now this nonsense? Check in in five months and it could be Kasich V. O'Malley and I wouldn't be surprised. 

NYT endorsed Clinton and Kasich today, so maybe Kasich will get more press. 

agentwhale007 wrote: tallen702 wrote:   Sanders would stand a much better chance in open primaries (a la Virginia) IMHO given that he appeals to the moderate right much more. In what way does he appeal to the moderate right other than being inconsistent at best about gun safety legislation?  Dude is a rather far-left Liberal from Vermont. He is easily the most liberal person running for president in the last decade or more. He supports large-scale tax increases, anti-coroprate business policies, he criticizes Israel, and is an ardent supporter of universal healthcare.  I really dig all those things. Shoot, I'll probably vote for him. But he's liberal enough that even moderate Democrats are uncomfortable with some of his policies.  The only big pull he's lucky to get from moderate Republicans are the ones who don't actually know who he is and still get bristly about Hillary Clinton because her name is Clinton.

So, to my above post. The NPR conclusion is that Trump is anti-establishment as is Sanders, hence the fact that a large portion of the people they interviewed say they'd vote Sanders if Trump loses the nomination.

Albeit, it's a mix of folks, everything from whack-jobs to real John Q Public types, that make up this group, and not just moderates, but Sanders' non-establishment cred looks good to them. Honestly, it makes me wonder if this is a shift that might do in both parties and fracture the playing field into what we see in other nations where there are lots of little parties and coalitions.

I don't ever see myself voting Democrat, but if I were forced to I would vote for Sanders over Clinton. I just do not trust Clinton at all.

I like the political ugliness. It's like MTV meets elections.

I think a Trump vs Bernie election to be fantastic, a Clinton vs Cruz election to be boring, and having a Bernie or Trump against Cruz or Clinton to be a small landslide. Clinton has no strong values in anything and Cruz is the same old Republican. You can say Clinton Cruz'ed in on the woman vote and Bills legacy.

I've leaned "Rubio" the whole time so I'm interested to see how he does moving forward, especially with the very narrow gap between him, Trump, and Cruz in the Iowa finish. I think he polls better than Cruz in less evangelical areas of the nation, so it's really anybody's race on the GOP side right now. Very much the same kind of field that the Dems were looking at when BHO came out from nowhere back in 2008.

I personally think Hillary has counted on the "women" vote entirely too much in her campaign. I think she felt that it was a given that women would vote for her in the same vein as the black voter movement turned out for BHO back in '08. Of course, that's not necessarily working out for her in the way she envisioned I'm sure. Most of my female friends and family members have said they'd rather vote for anyone BUT Hillary. She's just that off-putting. The nation has had plenty of time to see her character on display for better or for worse, and overall, it seems like she's been found lacking. I really do think that Sanders has a VERY good chance of making it to the primaries. He's frank and honest about what he stands for. People like that, even if they don't fully agree with his platform. They'll vote for someone sincere over someone who comes off as saying anything they have to to get elected it seems.

There is no real choice at all. It is going to end up as a voting against the other candidate more than voting for 'your' candidate. Another lessor of the two evils presented elections. Pretty sure I am just voting anti-Democrat based on the two evils they are presenting, a liar and a whack job too liberal for NY so he left for Vermont.

So far it looks like the Republicans will hurt my wallet less, other than that no real issues concern me.

Tallen, that is perfect.

When looking for a president, policies, goals, and character are important to me, but I think a president needs to look like a strong president. Cruz just looks too creepy to me. Definitely wouldn't want him going around the world to other leaders being the face of America.

It does seem pretty convoluted and anachronistic. Why do we even need delegates to vote? They should just be distributed by the numbers alone. Leave the human element out of it.