US Presidential Candidates

Annachie wrote:I personally wouldn't urinate on any of the republican candidatez if they were on fire. Not a single one of them appears capable of running a piss up in a brewery, (well Trump could) let alone a country. They all seem to be chasing the far right fundamentalist so called christian racist voter, and judging by Trumps polling numbers, that's where they think they need to be.

Of all the candidates, Sanders appears the best due to sheer honesty and unwillingness to play games. (He comes across that way at least)
There may be worthy Republican candidates, but they're being burried.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Pretty much...

Sadly the democrats in general are only a little less fundamentalist.

Annachie wrote:Of all the candidates, Sanders appears the best due to sheer honesty and unwillingness to play games. (He comes across that way at least)

I never gave Sanders a shot in hell of taking down Clinton, even though he'd make the best president in the field from either party... but he's doing better than I thought he would. There is a certain value in being by a large margin the least tolerant of bullshit politician in Washington combined with being one of the most knowledgeable. People seem to be picking up on it.


Still don't see him taking Clinton down. But who knows, weirder things have happened.

Apart from Sanders, possibly, I really don't see the next great President in the field anywhere.

Unfortunately Australian politics is the same with our leaders.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Sanders is extremely unlikely to win the Democratic nomination. He is far to the left of even the Democratic primary electorate (nationally). Ironically the first states to vote in the primaries are Iowa and New Hampshire, which are some of the more liberal states so he may do very well there. But that will likely represent his high point.

Europe and Australia may not be getting the same news coverage of the candidates that we are getting here in the states. Your coverage may be biased by your own media's viewpoint. To see what we are seeing:

Center left
http://www.cnn.com/politics

Center Right
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html



I know a lot of you outside the USA hate Foxnews but as you can see, that is where Republican primary voters tend to get their news. So if you want to know what Republicans are thinking about their primary candidates....

The statistics guys can be found on:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/sean_trende/

They are very useful for a dispassionate look at the numbers.

Incidentally although I tend to lean a bit right of center (relative to the USA electorate), I read news from across the political spectrum.

gcomeau wrote:

biochem wrote:Is it just me or does Hilary Clinton seem to be playing the role of Mitt Romney in the primaries this time around? Remember how every week the story was: Mitt is inevitable but the voters don't like him and are searching for an alternative. Every week it was a different candidate: Michelle Bachman - nope she's crazy, Rick Perry - nope he's an idiot, Herman Cain - nope sexual harassment scandal, Newt Gingrich - nope he's mean, OK we're stuck with Mitt - do we really have to pick him....

If you mean the sentiment among the more liberal end of the Democratic base... it would be the same in the sense that they don't want to be stuck with Clinton who is far too snuggled up to wall Street for their taste (not to mention that whole voting for authorizing use of force in Iraq thing). But they're not going through a sequential lottery of alternatives. It went:

Warren? Please? Please run? PLEEEEEEEASE? No, not gonna run?

Sanders! We want Sanders!

And they've been locked on that ever since pretty much and they're mobilizing to fight it out through the whole primary. Don't see that dynamic changing much (barring massive unexpected scandal or Warren suddenly deciding to actually run).

Even outside the liberal base a lot of Democrats seem more resigned than excited. To bad Warren, Beebe, Hickenlooper, Schweitzer, or Beshear isn't running. The behind the scenes maneuvering by the Clintons must have been epic.

viciokie wrote:The one huge problem i see with the vast majority of the republican candidates is that they are trying to run based on what they perceive their religion is and are from my perception are wanting to impose it on the the rest of the country. That and their perennial decision to eat shoe with regard on how they treat women or saying that women need to be led around. Talk about people making me do multiple head desk slams over stupidity in the republican contenders.

There's an awful lot of them this time and most of them seem to be well thought of. Hopefully, we'll get someone good.

I've been seeing a lot of news reports lately that Jeb Bush is winning the invisible primary.

I don't know if the other countries have something similar since they all have parliamentary systems. In the USA, the invisible primary starts the year before the primary elections. The goal is to get as many money people and party organizers/officials to back you.



Many countries would call that corruption.

That system would very likely lead to a loooong line of court cases if tried here, even with the laws of a few years back.
And the law was recently made stricter still.

It's not quite corruption (at least not usually). It's a bit more subtle than overt corruption, but it has a significant negative impact nonetheless. Right now we are looking at each nominee needing well over $120,000,000 for the primaries and over $1,000,000,000 once the general election fundraising is added in (yes that is over $1 billion that must be raised by the end of this). Those numbers don't include indirect money (superpacs and 527s). That's a lot of people who are going to want access to the new president in return for all of that money. It does help to get the most effective fundraisers on your side as soon as possible. Both Democrats and Republicans raise similar amounts.

On the bright side once the sides reach saturation, the effects of all of that money has diminishing returns.

Hmm 4 of the 11 souses mention Republican candidates or 36% of the news sources, while 8 of the eleven mention the Democrats or 72%, and 10 of 11 or 91% tends to show there is media bias rather conclusively. Notice it is against both of the major parties more so against the Republicans than the Democrats. Could this be the beginnings of a pox on both their houses? Quite frankly I don't like any of the major party candidates.

I wish we had none of the above on the ballet and if none of the above wins the office is vacant, hmm no executive branch all laws would have to be compromises to get the 2/3 majority to override the natural pocket veto of a vacant White House

Poker

biochem wrote:Sanders is extremely unlikely to win the Democratic nomination. He is far to the left of even the Democratic primary electorate (nationally). Ironically the first states to vote in the primaries are Iowa and New Hampshire, which are some of the more liberal states so he may do very well there. But that will likely represent his high point.

Europe and Australia may not be getting the same news coverage of the candidates that we are getting here in the states. Your coverage may be biased by your own media's viewpoint. To see what we are seeing:

Center left
http://www.cnn.com/politics

Center Right
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html



I know a lot of you outside the USA hate Foxnews but as you can see, that is where Republican primary voters tend to get their news. So if you want to know what Republicans are thinking about their primary candidates....

The statistics guys can be found on:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/sean_trende/

They are very useful for a dispassionate look at the numbers.

Incidentally although I tend to lean a bit right of center (relative to the USA electorate), I read news from across the political spectrum.

pokermind wrote:I wish we had none of the above on the ballet and if none of the above wins the office is vacant, hmm no executive branch all laws would have to be compromises to get the 2/3 majority to override the natural pocket veto of a vacant White House

Poker

Well, that would end up one of two ways...
1. It would force the government to focus on administrating and getting things to WORK as they ARE, and could work out quite well.

2. Reps maintains their obstructionism started under/against Obama, and everything goes to hell in ittybitty pieces(either because nothing can be made to work, or because the worst fringe idiots can get through policy by others inaction).

It's not quite corruption (at least not usually). It's a bit more subtle than overt corruption

Just because it´s not legally corruption there doesn´t mean it´s not corruption.

And like i said, i´m pretty sure there would be massconvictions for corruption if the same dealings were done here.

Here, the primary money provider for parties (and personal campaigning isn´t common), is the state subsidies based on votes in last election and total members(and no, that´s not something to try to rig because even when its unintentional it gets big headlines and gets discovered soon).

That's a lot of people who are going to want access to the new president in return for all of that money.

And the president will be morally obliged to provide it.

I know a lot of you outside the USA hate Foxnews

Not hate. More like disgusted that they can be so cheerfully dishonest(or just amazingly ignorant).

but as you can see, that is where Republican primary voters tend to get their news.

They get my pity, i still wont watch Fx news ( and no, that was an intentional misspelling, Fx as in special effects are sometimes shortened ).

Center Right

Seriously, Fox is faaaaar right.