The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

Gunky said:

He no longer has any chance but keeps telling his followers he has a chance because otherwise his campaign contributions would fall off to nothing. He lost the popular vote by a large margin, so all he can do is suggest the process is rigged, though it only appears rigged if you drink the Kool-aid and resolutely ignore the vote counts.

Click to expand...

What do you call Clinton outperforming all of the exit polls? And it gets even worse in the pre-adjusted raw polling data. Plus what of excluded independents?

What, are only Americans who tick off the box in either approved party given a say in our Presidential election? Fuck that.

Open Primaries for all. I'm just glad I didn't have to register democrat in CA. I went NPP. Although my family's ballots are here and mine is mysteriously not here. We all went through the same registration process, we all ticked the same boxes. I wonder why. Middle aged. Senior aged. And a young adult. Guess which one I am? That falls in line with what's happened in other states.

I want to call it an error and like my state too much to think they would purposefully weed out the young adults' mail in ballots. I'm still going to vote, I just have to call the voter office and make sure they mail one. I should have until the 31st. Last day to sign up for a mail in ballot. And we all returned the cards at the same time saying we were going to get a democratic ballot.

grokit said:

The Case for Superdelegates Selecting Sanders/

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha ha. You guys are so funny...

thisperson said:

What do you call Clinton outperforming all of the exit polls? And it gets even worse in the pre-adjusted raw polling data. Plus what of excluded independents?

What, are only Americans who tick off the box in either approved party given a say in our Presidential election? Fuck that.

Open Primaries for all. I'm just glad I didn't have to register democrat in CA. I went NPP. Although my family's ballots are here and mine is mysteriously not here. We all went through the same registration process, we all ticked the same boxes. I wonder why. Middle aged. Senior aged. And a young adult. Guess which one I am? That falls in line with what's happened in other states.

I want to call it an error and like my state too much to think they would purposefully weed out the young adults' mail in ballots. I'm still going to vote, I just have to call the voter office and make sure they mail one. I should have until the 31st. Last day to sign up for a mail in ballot. And we all returned the cards at the same time saying we were going to get a democratic ballot.

Click to expand...

Classic conspiracy theory. Have you ever considered how many people have to participate for the kind of voting fraud you charge to work? Grow up. It might be a good idea to volunteer as a polling place worker. Then you will understand how difficult it is to accomplish what you are charging. Fraud or miscount is difficult in one polling place. There are all kinds of observers from both parties watching everything that happens. To accomplish fraud in enough polling places to change the results of the election - ridiculously difficult and requires thousands of conspirators to keep mum.

As far as your own ballot - in CA no problem. You can always go to your polling place on voting day, explain that your vote by mail ballot never came and vote a provisional ballot which will count as long as they don't find one in the mail.

Lindsey Graham disappoints with his malleable principles

The problem with trying to look like a tough guy is that when you cave you look like a pussy.

Gunky said:

Classic conspiracy theory. Have you ever considered how many people have to participate for the kind of voting fraud you charge to work? Grow up. It might be a good idea to volunteer as a polling place worker. Then you will understand how difficult it is to accomplish what you are charging.

As far as your own ballot - in CA no problem. You can always go to your polling place on voting day, explain that your vote by mail ballot never came and vote a provisional ballot which will count as long as they don't find one in the mail.

Click to expand...

I take it you haven't seen articles talking about how old our voting machines are and how they can be easily rigged with a middle schooler's science education or some such. They were all the rage when election season was ramping up and I saw a few of them.

That makes an easy case for lone wolf operatives who we don't know who they are beholden to. But you're right, that's conspiracy territory.

thisperson said:

I take it you haven't seen articles talking about how old our voting machines are and how they can be easily rigged with a middle schooler's science education or some such. They were all the rage when election season was ramping up and I saw a few of them.

That makes an easy case for lone wolf operatives who we don't know who they are beholden to. But you're right, that's conspiracy territory.

Click to expand...

Um, there are no doubt articles talking about why Bernie is an agent of the Kremlin. That doesn't mean I give them any credence. You've never voted, have you?

You are clutching at straws. I think it is fair to say nothing short of a Bernie victory would be believable to you. Saint Bernie can't possibly lose! The very sparrow bends to his will and worships at his holy socialist podium/altar. And if he does lose that's because somebody cheated. Enjoy that kool-aid!

Gunky said:

Um, there are no doubt articles explaining why Bernie is an agent of the Kremlin. That doesn't mean I give them any creedence. You've never voted, have you?

Click to expand...

Many of us have opinions... the rest of us here are judgmental unqualified experts. "Um,..."

Gunky said:

Um, there are no doubt articles talking about why Bernie is an agent of the Kremlin. That doesn't mean I give them any credence. You've never voted, have you?

Click to expand...

I registered to vote when I was 18. My first election I voted for Jill Stein. My second (non presidential) election they never sent me the mail in ballot despite being a registered voter by mail. I was busy that day and didn't vote. Now I'm making sure they mail me my ballot.

I don't necessarily believe in conspiracy theories but I believe that Bernie Sanders could win over Hillary verses Donald Trump in a general election. Folks are looking for something different. Hillary is the establishment and folks don't like her.

She may make a good president but there's so much that she needs to deal with that hasn't been resolved. I'm not happy with Hillary as our democratic choice and many others aren't either.

It's important that Trump doesnt get into office. Bernie might be the person to do it. I would like to see a debate with Bernie and Trump.

Edit
Bernie won every county in the state of WA. Hillary didn't win one single county in my state. Washington is Bernie all the way. I hope he stays in until the very end. Who knows anything can happen.

The Mayor of Paris said, "Donald Trump is so stupid, my god." That was over the banning Muslim statement.

CarolKing said:

I would like to see a debate with Bernie and Trump.

Click to expand...

Substance vs. shallow ignorant bullshit... no debate needed, IMO. But Trump's zombie nationites won't be swayed - they're already brain dead.

This is from April 2, 2016
Donald Trump's rhetorical blitzkrieg against Fox News Channel star Megyn Kelly is one of the most-talked-about subplots of the 2016 presidential campaign. But there is a basic question that hasn't been sufficiently answered: Why her?

Charlie Rose tried to find out when he sat down with Kelly for an interview that will air this weekend on "CBS Sunday Morning," according to an excerpt the network aired on Friday. The surface-level answer is obvious: Kelly asked a question Trump didn't like when she moderated the first Republican presidential debate last August. The GOP front-runner said the next day on CNN that Kelly had "blood coming out of her wherever" and has continued to deride her basically ever since.

But plenty of other journalists have also asked tough -- and to his mind, unfair -- questions that irked Trump. None have been targeted with the same frequency and ferocity.

Kelly addressed her unique treatment during her conversation with Rose.
Anderson Cooper refuse to give an inch during a town hall session with Trump on Tuesday (he told the billionaire to his face that he was acting like a 5-year-old, for heaven's sake), and there was no follow-up Twitter rant about that "overrated," silver-haired "bimbo" on CNN. Sad!


Fox: Trump has 'extreme, sick obsession' with Megyn Kelly
There's more going on here.

For one thing, Kelly hosts the second-highest-rated program in cable news. To paraphrase Trump's long-lost media brother, Ron Burgundy, she's kind of a big deal -- on the news channel of choice for conservatives, no less. Turning Kelly into a Trump sympathizer would be a huge win, so it must drive him crazy that he can't do it.

The No. 1 show, of course, belongs to Bill O'Reilly, with whom Trump has (mostly) enjoyed a much friendlier rapport. Even when he vowed to boycott Fox News last fall - and even when he actually did boycott a Fox debate in January (because of Kelly) - Trump continued to appear on "The O'Reilly Factor." Though he professes to hate the media, the real estate magnate clearly values a show that can give him a large audience.

It seems to me that Trump's fury is directly proportional to how important a host is.

We also can't ignore the possibility (likelihood) that Trump's anger toward Kelly burns all the hotter because he sees her as a woman who - try as he might - he just can't charm. A profile of Kelly in the February issue of Vanity Fair imagined the candidate's frustration: "After all, in his mind, what beautiful woman didn't want to go to bed with him, right?"

Trump's habit of trying to flatter his way into the good graces of female journalists is well-documented. He tried it last week on his visit with The Washington Post editorial board, when he called Karen Attiah "beautiful." He had used the same line three days earlier on People magazine senior editor Charlotte Triggs, whom he also invited, on a whim, to join him aboard his private jet for a flight to his next rally in Arizona. (Triggs wrote that "campaign aides quickly quash[ed] that, citing Secret Service protocol on background checks.)

Kelly herself has said that Trump turned nasty only after his attempts to "woo" her, as she put it, failed. From the Vanity Fair piece:

In the past, she says, "he would send me press clippings about me that he would just sign 'Donald Trump.' And he called from time to time to compliment a segment. I didn't know why he was doing that. And then when he announced that he was running for president, it became more clear. But I can't be wooed. I was never going to love him, and I was never going to hate him."

Put it all together, and it's actually pretty clear why Trump picked Kelly as his media nemesis. It's not just because of one tough question at a debate or because "he cannot control the editorial" on her show. It's also because Kelly is an unattainable female quarry who bruised his ego and just so happens to anchor one of the most-watched hours in cable news - with an audience full of Republican voters Trump desperately wants to reach.

That's a recipe for plenty of resentment.

CarolKing said:

It's not just because of one tough question at a debate or because "he cannot control the editorial" on her show. It's also because Kelly is an unattainable female quarry who bruised his ego and just so happens to anchor one of the most-watched hours in cable news - with an audience full of Republican voters Trump desperately wants to reach. That's a recipe for plenty of resentment.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with the conclusion of this piece: Trump simply doesn't have the capacity of foresight to target one such as Kelly for the reasons stated. He merely reacted to the moment to which he took offense and retaliated, and gave it as much mileage as he possibly could exploit from it. Kelly did the same. Both bulls in a china shop, but Kelly in my book comes out triumphant like the matador.

The Libertarian Party tries to seize its Trump-sized opportunity

I can't see any way for them to beat Hillary, but wouldn't it be fun to see them beat Trump!!!

My only concern is Bernie driving Dems to them. If they were to win a few states they could *possibly* keep Hillary from getting to 270, which would lead to the House choosing the President, which would be horrible for everyone. Who knows who they might choose.

While I don't see much chance of that, the chance is NOT zero...

cybrguy said:

The Libertarian Party tries to seize its Trump-sized opportunity

I can't see any way for them to beat Hillary, but wouldn't it be fun to see them beat Trump!!!

My only concern is Bernie driving Dems to them. If they were to win a few states they could *possibly* keep Hillary from getting to 270, which would lead to the House choosing the President, which would be horrible for everyone. Who knows who they might choose.

While I don't see much chance of that, the chance is NOT zero...

Click to expand...

Hillary will send some Trump's way, Trump will send some Hillary's way, Bernie is a catalyst either way. Flip a coin and watch it spin spin spin until it settles on heads or tails or least likely of all on the edge.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.
This was posted 30 min ago April 24, 2016

Despite the outbursts of hundreds of protesters who overran barricades outside his rally, Republican Donald Trump told thousands of supporters that he was glad he stopped in New Mexico and he vowed to be back before the general election in November.

Trump's remarks were interrupted repeatedly by protesters, who shouted, held up banners, and resisted removal by security officers. Among the messages were banners that read, "Trump is Fascist," and another that read, "We've heard enough."

Trump responded with his usual bluster, instructing security to remove the protesters and mocking their actions.

"Go home to mommy," he said.

"How old is this kid?" Trump asked in response to another demonstrator. "Still wearing diapers," he said.

His supporters responded with chants of "Build that wall!"

Outside, a group of protesters rushed the convention center where the rally was being held. Police outfitted in riot gear blocked them as they tried to advance.

Smoke filled the air as others burned T-shirts and items labeled with Trump's catch phrase: "Make America Great Again."

Tuesday marked Trump's first stop in New Mexico, the nation's most Hispanic state.

Former President Bill Clinton pleaded with several hundred Democrats in northern New Mexico to send his wife "to the convention with the wind at her back," repeating the refrain, "We can do this."

Clinton's 25-minute speech at the plaza in Espanola dwelled on themes of educational opportunity in economically downtrodden communities and portrayed Hillary Clinton as an advocate for Americans from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.

"Intelligence is equally distributed throughout this country," he said. "It's opportunity that is not evenly distributed and that's why Hillary is running."

Without mentioning Bernie Sanders or Trump, Bill Clinton said his wife was being attacked because she is the more formidable candidate, and the choice among optimists.

Bill Clinton reminded the audience that he carried New Mexico twice in general elections. He shook hands with people for 10 minutes as the event concluded.

His visit comes just days after Sanders rallied a crowd of thousands to downtown Albuquerque with proclamations about the need to overcome the establishment within the Democratic Party.

Bill Clinton will also campaign Wednesday in Albuquerque before wrapping up his two-day swing.

Trump took swipes at the Clintons during his speech, saying trade agreements signed by the former president cost New Mexico jobs, drawing boos from the crowd.

He also said the number of people on welfare in New Mexico has tripled and said Gov. Susana Martinez, head of the Republican Governors Association and the nation's only Latina governor, needs to do a better job.

Martinez harshly criticized Trump's remarks on immigrants and has attacked his proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The governor did not attend the rally and has yet to make an endorsement.

Supporters at Tuesday's rally said they backed Trump's stance on boosting border security and trying to stemming the flow of people who are crossing illegally.

Trump's supporters braved profanities, insults and water bottles tossed by protesters before the rally.

Some of the protesters yelled at Dawn Selwyn and her 68-year-old mother, Olivia, as they got into line for their chance to see Trump.

Selwyn, a 50-year-old Lakota-Sioux woman, said she thinks Trump would be good for Native Americans. "He's for the little guy," she said. "I don't find him offensive at all."

Edit
Jeffrey Lord Trump's surrogate is blaming the occupy wall street folks or the WTO folks For the riots. Not blaming Donald Trump at all. So sick of this bullshit and no responsibility on Trumps part. People are pissed just like me. And they aren't the occupy wall street folks.

Then they start saying that it's the Bernie Sanders people protesting too. They are the, we don't want Trump people. The Governor didn't even show up to Trump's rally and she is a republican.

Trump is the one causing all this hate. Later in the evening the protest got violent and people are throwing rocks and bottles at police and they should be arrested. Police didn't arrest anybody is what CNN said.

Washington had their primary today. A mail in ballot. We were told that it wouldnt count for democrats. It looks like Hillary is a head at this point but dont know how they would know yet. Folks still were mailing in their ballots today. Plus it's supposed to not count. I almost didn't vote because of that. I'm glad I mailed in my ballot today. This process is so fucked up. We had a caucus on a Saturday back in March. Bernie won all the counties of our state. Now the Clinton representative is saying that Hillary should get all the super delegates. Who knows what kind of rules are in place.

How can we go over to other countries and tell them how to vote? We can't get it right in our own country.

CNN just said one person was all that was arrested in New Mexico rioting.

---

Throwing stuff at the police horses was a particularly evil strategy. I have no sympathy with people who do that, and I don't give a rat's ass if they are protesting Trump. I hope they find those jerks and lock them up. In our opposition to Trump, it's essential to not become a mirror image of Trump, callous and uncaring about who gets hurt.

Many of the protesters started out earlier in the day being peaceful. Later on in the evening others with more evil intentions took over. I support a peaceful protest. I draw the line with violence. I don't even like name calling for the most part either. Trump seems to bring out the anger in people pro or against. Not a good thing.

Edit
I was reading the below post @Silat. We have our own business but I work part time out in the work force. My employer pays all but $200 of my medical insurance. My husband pays $1200 a month for his insurance. So between the two of us it's $1400 per month.

What's the difference paying this money in taxes or for my medical insurance.

Gunky said:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/17/t...will-look-like-under-bernie-sanders-tax-plan/

The numbers in the above link are not controversial.

Take those numbers with a vast pile of salt. The Euro socialism which Bernie explicitly admires (and said in one debate he wants us to emulate) costs a great deal more than Bernie's plan, as in 50-60% tax rates compared to our current 15%.

By the way don't stay up nights worrying about Bernie's tax increase. He won't get the nomination. Even if he got the nomination and was elected president, these policies are dead on arrival in Congress. Lone wolves by definition don't have a lot of followers.

Click to expand...

Well you really have to suspend reality to believe those figures from your link. And the numbers are controversial when you only tell half the story. Like conveniently leaving out the YUGE savings in insurance costs etc that the 99% will not be paying to corporations.

This quote from the link you used says it all:"“Crucially, these calculations do not take into account the effects of eliminating employer-sponsored health insurance, which would increase workers’ paychecks significantly,” Greenberg cautioned The Daily Caller News Foundation, adding numbers do reflect the 6.2 percent employer-side payroll tax, the 2.2 percent individual income surtax and the 0.2 percent employer and employee-side payroll taxes. “This is because there is no way to tell how much workers would value their new, federally provided health insurance under the Sanders plan, compared to their current health insurance from their employers.”"

More info on your sources and their numbers or lack thereof:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjr...anders-plan-only-shows-downside/#5e285f644aab



Right wing and corporate? HELL YES IT IS http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tax_Foundation

Agreed, the daily caller is a shitty site but the info I linked to is pretty much what anyone will tell you, Sanders people included. Did you really think you were going to get free college tuition, free health care and all the rest of what he is promising and no increases to your taxes? You act so shocked that they might go up 8%. I find the idea that a paltry 8% increase, even with the bigger increases on the wealthy, is going to pay for all that stuff rather incredible (not in a good way) considering what Bernie's European models are paying. Too good to be true. What Sanders is saying is we'll put taxes on the rich back to pre-Reagan levels, increase taxes on everyone else by moderate amounts like 8% (which must be fairly close to pre-reagan or perhaps a bit more) but now everybody gets free college, health care etc, and we all get a pony. And somehow everyone's taxes will all be just about the same as under Carter but this time we all get ponies and everything! Isn't it wonderful? Rainbows and unicorns... [cue the St. Bernie theme song on violin]

–Zach Gibson / The New York Times
12:46 AM
BOSTON (AP) — More shots have been fired in the war of words between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump.

The Massachusetts Democrat on Tuesday called the Republican presidential candidate a ‘‘small, insecure moneygrubber’’ who doesn’t care whom he hurts, as long as he can make money.

Warren pointed to comments Trump said in 2007 that he’s always made more money in bad markets than in good markets.

‘‘Donald Trump was drooling over the idea of a housing meltdown because it meant he could buy up a bunch more property on the cheap,’’ Warren said. ‘‘What kind of a man does that? Root for people to get thrown out on the street?’’

Plenty of people made money off the housing crash other than Trump. That's what they do when things are cheap they buy. Its always been that way. The rich always have money when nobody else does. Trump doesn't know how it feels to be a regular person, he can't relate to that.

In an earlier post I mentioned that Bernie's consistent lament that the democratic primary has been less than fair might be used as an excuse to run in the general .... even if Hillary wins the primary. I also mentioned how torn I am about this....wouldn't want Bernie to run, dilute the democratic/independent voting numbers and give Trump an advantage. I'm torn because I'm starting to wonder if Hillary can defeat Trump and whether it might be best for Bernie to run. Momentum may be running against Hillary and political outsiders like Trump and Bernie have an obvious advantage over political insiders like Hillary.

If you thought Bernie was harsh and/or out of line when alluding to Hillary's monetary situations.... you probably shouldn't read the following article. The reality is Bernie left the gloves on......Maybe Bernie isn't positioning to run in the general if he loses after all since he didn't break out all the detail ammunition in the article.

Bernie Should Hit Hillary With the Dubious Donations in ‘Clinton Cash’ - Yahoo Finance
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bernie-hit-hillary-dubious-donations-101500953.html

Nice article by Yahoo.

I hadn't heard of that new Clinton documentary. Have you guys heard of the Bern movie documentary?

https://www.bernthemovie.com/

I want to watch that. Hope it comes out for the 27th like they wanted to.

His_Highness said:

In an earlier post I mentioned that Bernie's consistent lament that the democratic primary has been less than fair might be used as an excuse to run in the general .... even if Hillary wins the primary. I also mentioned how torn I am about this....wouldn't want Bernie to run, dilute the democratic/independent voting numbers and give Trump an advantage. I'm torn because I'm starting to wonder if Hillary can defeat Trump and whether it might be best for Bernie to run. Momentum may be running against Hillary and political outsiders like Trump and Bernie have an obvious advantage over political insiders like Hillary.

If you thought Bernie was harsh and/or out of line when alluding to Hillary's monetary situations.... you probably shouldn't read the following article. The reality is Bernie left the gloves on......Maybe Bernie isn't positioning to run in the general if he loses after all since he didn't break out all the detail ammunition in the article.

Bernie Should Hit Hillary With the Dubious Donations in ‘Clinton Cash’ - Yahoo Finance
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bernie-hit-hillary-dubious-donations-101500953.html

Click to expand...

What happens when Trump uses this against her?
He could make minced meat out of her in the eyes of the voting populace.
All the lying and cheating may not be enough to provide her a road to the White House and it may behoove us to double our support of Bernie all the way to the convention.
That may be the only way to avoid a Trump presidency. I just fear Hillary supporters want their anointed candidate or none.

The Clinton documentary is set to be shown in major US cities, including Philadelphia during the Democratic National Convention there in July. Schweizer’s research has withstood a year of intense scrutiny from critics because it is fact, not fiction. And the facts are compelling.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/17/first-look-at-explosive-hillary-documentary-clinton-cash/

Sanders Isn’t Doing Well With True Independents
By Harry Enten


Bernie Sanders during an interview with The Associated Press on Monday in Los Angeles.
A lot has been made of Bernie Sanders’s appeal with independent voters during the Democratic presidential primary. He has won people who identify as independents in state after state, while Hillary Clinton has won people who identify as Democrats. Some Sanders backers have argued that this will translate to the general election; they point to general election polls that show Sanders doing better against Donald Trump than Clinton is.

The problem with this analysis, however, is that most independents are really closeted partisans, and there is no sign that true independents disproportionately like Sanders.

Most voters who identify as independent consistently vote for one party or the other in presidential elections. In a Gallup poll taken in early April, for instance, 41 percent of independents (who made up 44 percent of all respondents) leaned Democratic, and 36 percent leaned Republican. Just 23 percent of independents had no partisan preference. In the last three presidential elections, the Democratic candidate received the support of no less than 88 percent of self-identified independents who leaned Democratic, according to the American National Elections Studies survey. These are, in effect, Democratic voters with a different name.

Right now, Clinton is struggling with this group. According to a Gallup poll conducted May 15 to May 21, her favorable rating among Democratic-leaning independents was just 51 percent, compared with 73 percent among people who identify as Democrats. That’s a 22-percentage-point difference. Sanders and Trump, on the other hand, had gaps of just 3 and 7 percentage points, respectively, between independents who lean toward their party and their party’s pure partisans.

Sanders did slightly better with Democratic-leaning independents (71 percent favorable) than he did with plain-old Democrats (68 percent favorable), but that appeal does not seem to extend to true independents — those who are most likely to change party allegiances between elections and whose split between the Republican and Democratic candidates nearly matched the split in the nation overall in the last two elections, according to the ANES. In the Gallup poll, Sanders had a 35 percent favorable rating among independents who don’t lean toward either party. Clinton’s favorable rating with that group was 34 percent. Trump’s was a ridiculously low 16 percent.

One could argue that Sanders has greater potential with these true independents than Clinton: Just 63 percent of them had formed an opinion of him, according to the Gallup poll, while 83 percent had done so for Clinton. But it’s also possible that these true independents will turn against him in greater numbers as they learn more about him.

For now, though, Sanders’s big advantage over Clinton in general election matchups is his edge among Democratic-leaning independents, not pure independents. Currently, all the Democratic groups that like Clinton also like Sanders, but the reverse is not true. As my colleague Nate Silver and NBC News’s Mark Murray have both pointed out over the past week: Clinton has yet to win over a number of Sanders supporters, but Sanders does very well among most Clinton supporters.

But that we’re talking about Clinton’s need to win over Democratic-leaning independents rather than true independents is a hopeful sign for her campaign — these voters have tended to stick with the Democratic Party. If Clinton can lure these Sanders voters back into her tent, she’ll probably lead Trump by somewhere around 5 percentage points nationally, instead of the 2 percentage points she leads him by now. My guess is that she’ll probably win many of them over, considering that a large portion are normally reliable Democratic voters. This year is so crazy, though — who can really say?