The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[lwien]

 

[grokit]

Yes, Mitt Romney Could Actually Become The Republican Presidential Nominee

Mitt Romney is interviewed by Neil Cavuto during his "Cavuto Coast to Coast" program on the Fox Business Network, in New York Friday, March 4, 2016. CREDIT: AP Photo/Richard Drew

Back in November, before voters cast their first primary ballots and while many people still considered Donald Trump a passing phase, I asked my father who he thought would clinch the Republican nomination for president. To my surprise, he uttered the name of a man I was pretty sure was not even running for president: Former U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

I laughed — but dad was serious. He didn’t think billionaire Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), or any of the other candidates would get enough primary votes to automatically secure the nomination at the Republican National Convention in July. And, given the chance to choose their nominee, dad predicted that choice would be Romney.

Now, I can barely believe it, but the story of the day is Romney’s eligibility for the 2016 presidential nomination. On Sunday, Romney was asked by a reporter whether he would accept the nomination in the event of a “brokered” or “contested” Republican National Convention in July. Romney suggested that, if it was given, he would accept it.

“I don’t think anyone in our party should say, ‘Oh no, even if the people of the party wanted me to be president, I would say no to it,’” he said. “No one is going to say that.”

Even in the increasingly expectation-breaking election cycle of Donald Trump, the idea that someone who isn’t actually running for president could be the Republican presidential nominee is, at best, perplexing. But it is possible, according to Steffen Schmidt, a political science professor at Iowa State University.

“Yes, it is absolutely possible that Mitt Romney could be the Republican nominee,” he told ThinkProgress on Friday. “I don’t know how likely it is, but it’s possible.”

The Mechanics Of A Contested Convention

To understand how this would happen, one must understand the mechanics of a “contested” or “brokered” convention, which would have to occur for Romney to secure the nomination...


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...a1713&elqaid=29379&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=5173

 

[1DMF]

I don't know much about USA politics, but as an outsider, I am getting very concerned every time I see the news about the latest debate.

The last one I saw seemed to be a pitched battle with Trump and other candidates having a

my dick's bigger than yours

slanging match.

Colour me bemused but WTF, this is the presidential elections for the most powerful country in the world (possibly), and it's come down to a dick contest, really?

If that's the case surely Obama should win

 

[howie105]

The wacky appearances of the candidates is IMO just an adaption of the campaign process optimized for the media presentation machine that is carrying it. The players are still humans and still pursuing the same goals as always but its just the packaging that has changed. I try not to watch the bright colors and loud noises but look at agendas and verifiable performance.

 

[Snappo]

Each is a bloated bigger than life characature of themself, even without the aid of the media lens & microphone. Trump, however, is by comparison to all others, a monolthic Macy's parade float who towers from high above in full fascist garb.

 

[lwien]

Trumps most outrageous lie..........ever:........"I don't want to offend anybody."
---http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/08/politics/donald-trump-adolf-hitler-comparison-response/index.html

 

[grokit]

It's the math: the trump train wreck's path to the presidency is through hillary clinton.

Hillary’s inevitability lie: Why the media and party elites are rushing to nominate the weakest candidate
For two years, media has swallowed and peddled the Clinton inevitability line. She's the one Dem even Trump beats

Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders (Credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster/Reuters/Jim Young/Photo montage by Salon)

The nation may be divided but at least its pundits speak as one. They all say Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are killing the competition. Pundits love to issue death certificates. On Super Tuesday they sounded like the coroner of Munchkin Land. (He’s not only merely dead, but really most sincerely dead!) They’re wrong. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and especially Bernie Sanders are all alive and kicking. It ain’t over yet; not by a long shot.

If Clinton and Trump win their conventions, it’ll be the first time both parties nominated their weakest candidate. Trump is the one Republican almost any Democrat can beat; Hillary the one Democrat Trump can beat. The response of the party establishments is instructive. Republicans engage in a mad scramble to stop Trump while Democrats do all they can to help Hillary seal the deal.

Fear of Trump unites Republican elites as nothing but hatred for Obama ever did; Senate leadership with House rank and file; libertarians with militarists and supply siders; the Kochs with Karl Rove. A few of the phonier evangelicals defected to Trump but most, like the pope, know a fake Christian when they see one. All the factions now join the RNC, Fox News and every corporate lobbyist in town in a late, frantic effort to turn the tide. On Tuesday, Trump routed them all.

Democratic elites are just as united in opposing Bernie Sanders: members of Congress, gay and abortion rights lobbies, African-American leaders, most of labor and many of the same corporate lobbyists battling Trump. Sanders is a reformer and an honest, decent man. Trump is a louche, lying fascist with the impulse control of a hyperactive four-year-old. Yet Trump, not Sanders, is laying waste his party. Are Democrats simply more skilled in the art of suppression? If so, who knew?

But things aren’t as they seem. Sanders is doing better and Trump worse than the media thinks. Each race will now shift; whether enough to stop Clinton or Trump depends on strategy, execution, luck and other things impossible to poll. Elites may hold on for one last round but these insurgencies threaten their long term survival. Since their survival threatens ours, that’s great news...

https://www.salon.com/2016/03/08/hi...nate_the_weakest_candidate/?source=newsletter

 

[Gunky]

I have a serious question for those who don't like Hillary. I have been puzzled by the way Sanders attacks her when it comes to Wall Street. His line on campaign contributions is a good one and I think it's a big plus for him. What seems odd to me is that people seem to be more bothered by those Goldman-Sachs speeches for which she got paid a lot than they are by any contributions made from any particular quarter.

My reaction to this is twofold. Firstly, it's not at all unusual for politicians to give speeches for lots of money and why should I care that she soaked Goldman-Sachs for a lot? The second thing I react to is that it seems like if there were any real contributions that could be traced to poor decisions she made in the past then I wouldn't hear only these speeches. The woman is a career politician. They couldn't find anything suspect when it comes to campaign finance? That makes me think there's not anything concrete there to find otherwise she'd be getting hammered with it.

Are we to simply assume that everyone taking campaign contributions from large entities is corrupt without any particular criticism of where it comes from other than references to a couple of speeches given to a notorious but legally legitimate group?

2013 article about Clinton's speaking biz:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...abdfc6-e9aa-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_story.html

Recent one shows tots for both Clintons since 2001: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

 

[KimDracula]

It just seems to me that Clinton opponents should be able to craft more targeted attacks regarding the source of her campaign funding and related policy decisions. When what we get is a general attack on rich special interests I'm not that impressed although I don't disagree in that general sense. If entities like Goldman-Sachs want to get money to Clinton or opportunities to lobby I don't really think the speeches are the thing to fear. Our system allows this to happen legally without that wrinkle. The justification for the mistrust of Hillary usually seems pretty thin to me. People don't have a lot of specifics on this. She just represents "the establishment" and is assumed to be a completely corrupt villain. I don't think she can be totally trusted but that goes for every politician for me.

 

[Snappo]

It just seems to me that Clinton opponents should be able to craft more targeted attacks regarding the source of her campaign funding and related policy decisions. When what we get is a general attack on rich special interests I'm not that impressed although I don't disagree in that general sense. If entities like Goldman-Sachs want to get money to Clinton or opportunities to lobby I don't really think the speeches are the thing to fear. Our system allows this to happen legally without that wrinkle. The justification for the mistrust of Hillary usually seems pretty thin to me. People don't have a lot of specifics on this. She just represents "the establishment" and is assumed to be a completely corrupt villain. I don't think she can be totally trusted but that goes for every politician for me.

True enough... whatever politicians let slip into their pockets I'm sure is well-concealed in darkest corners where prying eyes are least likely to find... e.g., tax returns don't reveal legal forms of subterfuge such as putting assets in the name of others (remote entities, corporates, friends, family, etc.), for example.

 

[grokit]

I want to know what was in the goldman-sachs speeches, precisely because she doesn't want me to. What was she saying to those bail-out with a fat bonus bastards that she doesn't want anybody else to hear?

I bet it's contradictory to what she wants we the people to hear, or she wouldn't be so ashamed of it.


edit:
Hillary won another red state, but bernie is ahead by two percentage points in michigan
Michigan has a lot of delegates. Four out of the last six states have gone for sanders...

 

[Gunky]

The Clinton's have earned something like $130 million by speaking fees since 2001 (most of that Bill). They are fairly well fixed. It's not like any particular 200 grand gig is all that significant to them. She would probably speak to an FC convention if we came up with the cash.

 

[grokit]

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one attendee at an Oct. 2013 Goldman Sachs event in Arizona told Politico about Clinton’s speech, which earned the former secretary of state $225,000. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

“It would bury her against Sanders,” the attendee told Politico, referring to Clinton’s challenger, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “It really makes her look like an ally of the firm.”

 

[CarolKing]

Michigan is feeling the Bern tonight. Bernie voted for the auto bailout but not with the Wallstreet ball out that was attached. Hillary did though. She tried to make Bernie look bad and he put her in her place. It's still too close to say that Bernie's winning yet.

 

[grokit]

Michigan is feeling the Bern tonight. Bernie voted for the auto bailout but not with the Wallstreet ball out that was attached. Hillary did though. She tried to make Bernie look bad and he put her in her place. It's still too close to say that Bernie's winning yet.

With 88% reporting bernie has 50.4% and hillary 47.7%, so I'd say michigan is in the bag for sanders. Not bad for an old socialist that was 25 points down just one week ago, according to the detroit free press.

 

[CarolKing]

I don't believe polls. They said Hillary had it in the bag. David Axlerod is so right. Hillary needs to come across as being more authentic. I'm worried about the huge Republican numbers compared to the Democrats. They were just talking about it on CNN.

CNN Breaking - Sanders the winner in Michigan.

Edit
Polls are flawed, not a good way to judge if your candidate will be a winner.

 

[t-dub]

David Axlerod is so right. Hillary needs to come across as being more authentic.

She can't because she just isn't.

Looks like Bernie is winning in Michigan . . . .

 

[Magic9]

It just seems to me that Clinton opponents should be able to craft more targeted attacks regarding the source of her campaign funding and related policy decisions.

The GS speeches speak to her duplicitous nature. The fact she just laughs it off, speaks volumes. It is also easy for the short attention span of the public to digest in a short soundbite. There is also a real risk that too strong of an attack will damage her for the general election.

If I were trying to craft a targeted attack, I'd start with donations from foreign governments to her foundation when she was SoS. The republicans will strike on this, but it carries more weight if they can point to her own party questioning her on it.

The justification for the mistrust of Hillary usually seems pretty thin to me. People don't have a lot of specifics on this.

I wouldn't even know where to start.

---

I can't believe Sanders pulled off the MI upset. 20 point gap overcame in a week. Holy shit.

IF Trump really is the new Hitler, who better to slay him than Bernie? It's destiny now.

 

[cybrguy]

The missing details from Bernie Sanders’ general-election pitch

03/09/16 12:56 PM—Updated 03/09/16 01:28 PM

In Sunday night’s debate, Anderson Cooper asked Bernie Sanders about how he’d approach a general-election match-up against Donald Trump. The Vermont senator didn’t have to think much about the answer.

“I would love to run against Donald Trump, and I’ll tell you why. For a start, almost, not all, but almost every poll has shown that Sanders vs. Trump does a lot better than Clinton vs. Trump.

“Right here in Michigan there was a poll done, I think yesterday, or today, had me beating Trump in Michigan by 22 points. Secretary Clinton beat him as well, but not by so much. And, that’s true nationally, and in many other states.”​

There’s simply no denying the accuracy of Sanders’ boast. The polling data is publicly available, and most of it looks exactly the way the senator described it: both of the Democratic candidates lead Trump in a hypothetical general election, but Sanders’ advantage is larger.

Just yesterday, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reinforced the thesis with national results that showed Clinton leading Trump by 13 points, but Sanders ahead by 18 points. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll showed similar results. So did the most recent national USA Today/Suffolk poll. So did the most recent national Quinnipiac poll.

If one or two of these showed outlier results, it’d be easier to question the reliability of the numbers, but when there’s polling unanimity, the observation is much tougher to question.

And so, Sanders and his supporters point to these polls, loudly and repeatedly, as a way of deflecting questions about the Independent senator’s electability. And really, who can blame them? Most voters are reluctant to throw away a vote on a candidate who’s bound to lose, and the Vermonter and his campaign allies appear to have quantifiable proof that he’s a safe choice –perhaps even the safer choice.

But some caveats are in order. The problem isn’t that Sanders’ argument is wrong – the data clearly backs him up – but rather, that the argument is incomplete in a broader context.

For example, while general-election polling at this stage is interesting for establishing baselines, it’s also unreliable. Vox published a piece last week pointing to the available political-science research.

In an interview, [Robert S. Erikson] told me that general election polling from this time of year is “pretty meaningless,” and said he was surprised his work had been cited to argue for Sanders’s general election chances. “Bernie can look good in some polls, but I don’t think anyone who follows politics thinks those would hold in November,” Erikson said.

It is for this reason that some, like Seth McKee, a political science professor at Texas Tech University, regard such early polls as “absolutely worthless.” Relatively few voters have made up their minds this long before the election, McKee says.​

Even if you put this aside and take the early polling very seriously, there are other areas of concern. Revisiting our discussion from a couple of months ago, Hillary Clinton has been a high-profile national figure for many years, and her public reputation has been shaped in part by attacks from Republicans who’ve hated her, on a professional level, for the better part of a quarter-century.

Sanders, in contrast, has never sought national office and has never been subjected to the full weight of the GOP Attack Machine, in part because his re-election bids in Vermont have been so easy. Indeed, much of the public, which is not yet engaged in the presidential campaign, probably has very little idea about who the senator is and what he believes.

And so the question for Democrats is not just which candidate has a poll advantage now, but also which candidate seems likely to withstand the onslaught of attacks that would inevitably come in the fall.

Sanders obviously wants voters to believe he’s that candidate. It is, however, a speculative question – no one can say with certainty whether or not he’s correct. That said, experts can make educated projections. GW political scientist John Sides noted last month that Sanders’ views and ideology “creates the risk of a penalty at the ballot box.”

He highlighted a Gallup report published last summer that asked Americans, without mentioning any candidates’ names, whether voters would be comfortable with different kinds of presidential candidates. For example, 93% of Americans said they’re fine with voting for a Roman Catholic, and 92% of voters are on board with supporting a woman.

Further down the list, just 60% said they could vote for a Muslim, and atheists did a little worse, at 58%.

Socialists, however, finished dead last at 47% – the only group that finished below 50%.

If you’re a Sanders backer, you might make the case that the senator’s message is so compelling, he could change voters’ minds about the dreaded “s” word. That may be true. But if there’s a discussion underway about the general-election viability of national candidates, horse-race snapshots from early March only show us part of a bigger picture.

 

[Farid]

Hillary supporters were attacking Obama for being too socialist back in 2008, and it didn't hold him back. They also attacked his lack of foreign policy experience, being too soft on guns, and him not being strong enough for women's rights. Now that they're attacking Sanders for not being in line with Obama's policy... The hypocrisy is glaring, and it's stuff like that which makes people distrust the Clinton campaign.

 

[howie105]

It just seems to me that Clinton opponents should be able to craft more targeted attacks regarding the source of her campaign funding and related policy decisions. When what we get is a general attack on rich special interests I'm not that impressed although I don't disagree in that general sense. If entities like Goldman-Sachs want to get money to Clinton or opportunities to lobby I don't really think the speeches are the thing to fear. Our system allows this to happen legally without that wrinkle. The justification for the mistrust of Hillary usually seems pretty thin to me. People don't have a lot of specifics on this. She just represents "the establishment" and is assumed to be a completely corrupt villain. I don't think she can be totally trusted but that goes for every politician for me.

Clinton, Trump, Saunders and Cruz all want the same job and when applying for a gig you don't start by punching the boss in the face.

 

[grokit]

Donald Trump Spent a Good Portion of His Press Conference Tonight Hawking Products That Don't Exist Anymore

"Despite winning both Mississippi and Michigan early in the night, Trump spent a good six minutes elucidating how business ventures that would look like embarrassing failures to anyone with even a remote sense of shame are actually shining successes."

http://gawker.com/donald-trump-spent-a-good-portion-of-his-press-conferen-1763684425

https://www.salon.com/2016/03/09/th...everything_wrong_with_2016/?source=newsletter

 

[Magic9]

I remember when Obama was unelectable.

Same old Penn strategy.

 

[grokit]

Hillary vs trump would be presented as establishment insider vs party outsider.
Sanders vs trump would be spun as freedom (capitalism) vs. communism (socialism).

Trumpzilla need to be stopped

 

[Gunky]

I remember when Obama was unelectable.

Same old Penn strategy.

Obama didn't actually claim to be a socialist; he just played one in republican fantasies and turned out in fact to be a middle of the road dem. Bernie actually claims to be a socialist. This is a pretty significant difference.