Donald Trump for president?

[Mr. Desmond]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I think that is also due that those who want to rant the most are the most extreme in political views, on both sides of the party. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lets-be-serious-about-ted-cruz-from-the-start-hes-too-extreme-and-too-disliked-to-win/

Take a look at the nice chart they have. Kasich is pretty much in the conservative average.  

 

I would take a serious look at Kasich although he recently said a few things to appeal to the extremists that were disturbing. His problem is charisma - he discusses issues and people's eyes glaze over. I would suggest new speechwriters.

[Jeremie Boop]

1 hour ago, Mr. Desmond said:

The best Republican candidate is probably not a Republican - Hillary - when she escapes from her Bernie troubles, she will turn back to her conservative Democrat roots. At least she won't have a learning curve, she knows the severity of our problems, she knows how to make deals, and she knows how to play the game. Won't be anything radical... that's about all you can trust.

Heck, Trump is a conservative Democrat in these times, a moderate Republican of 30 years ago - just doesn't have the patience to study or know how to resolve issues. Unfortunately, we don't have time to train him, nor does he have the resolve or nuance to be a President.

Best Republican candidate is Hillary? That's possibly one of the weirdest things I've ever read. Pretty much nothing about what she says strikes me as even moderately conservative/Republican in nature.

[Mr. Desmond]

43 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Best Republican candidate is Hillary? That's possibly one of the weirdest things I've ever read. Pretty much nothing about what she says strikes me as even moderately conservative/Republican in nature.

Look at her husband -- a conservative Dem who made deals with the GOP but lacked trust in the military. And only got serious with the military in the last couple of years when he started taking AQ seriously.

Like I said, I've followed politics since '68, and was a GOP diehard until 2000. I consider this last 20 years of the GOP as an anomaly. It's not the GOP. It is a winner take all party that is only interested in power. Being a realist, I know politics is about power, but politicians also have an ancillary duty, and that is to serve the interests of the people. This iteration of the GOP exists to serve evangelicals and the 1% - a minority of the people. Why? Fear of a few zealots with money.

Now this anomaly may be permanent, and if so, I predict a breakup of the party. The GOP is already 2 parties vying for power. You have the evangelical tea party-my-way-or-no-way types that have dominated since 2010, and then you have the slightly more moderate types that, to get along, have abandoned their principles to remain in office.

The GOP right wing is a party of intimidation and I do not think it serves the people of this country - it serves a small 1% and consists primarily of those who hold to conservative value but vote against their own interests.

And just because one is left on social issues does not mean one is not conservative on economic issues and common sense issues. I guess those are labeled as independents.

Trump has arrived because of the people frustration with the inability of their party to make deals. Trump sells himself as a dealmaker.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[Mr. Desmond]

50 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Best Republican candidate is Hillary? That's possibly one of the weirdest things I've ever read. Pretty much nothing about what she says strikes me as even moderately conservative/Republican in nature.

Not that weird -- I have a few friends who are influential in the business community and who have only voted GOP for over 35 years -- given a choice of Trump/Cruz v. Hillary, they said they'd vote Hillary.

[Jeremie Boop]

33 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Not that weird -- I have a few friends who are influential in the business community and who have only voted GOP for over 35 years -- given a choice of Trump/Cruz v. Hillary, they said they'd vote Hillary.

Which is exactly what I said, that Trump is only pushing people to vote for Hillary/Sanders.

[jbishop15]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I think that is also due that those who want to rant the most are the most extreme in political views, on both sides of the party. 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lets-be-serious-about-ted-cruz-from-the-start-hes-too-extreme-and-too-disliked-to-win/

Take a look at the nice chart they have. Kasich is pretty much in the conservative average.  

I everyone in the senate could compromise better than Obama. He's been one of the worst leading presidents in a long time. 

I don't know. She's been known to crumble in the past. She got railroaded by Obama in the last democratic primary. Once she faced adversity she basically just dive bombed. 

I think her confidence sways way too much. Sanders is catching her fast. I think she's good as a front runner. We'll see. She's had a lot of shots, this is her best. If the race is tight and she wins then maybe I'll have second opinions on her ability to stand firm. 

 

This is a weird statement to make when Congress is controlled by the Republican party. 

[Mr. Desmond]

10 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

Which is exactly what I said, that Trump is only pushing people to vote for Hillary/Sanders.

Must have said it in another post. 

The definition of conservative changes with each era. Which President started the EPA? Which President began price controls in the '60's-early 70's? ... supposedly a conservative. The definition of what the GOP accepts has changed. Once the Teamsters endorsed a GOP Candidate, and once upon a time, the GOP cared about the middle class or upper middle, or even the lower upper. Not in this era.

If you view history over the last 40 years, you would see today's conservatives as they are -- extreme right wing, not mainstream. Not even Reagan would be accepted as a "true" conservative in today's GOP. 

Edited February 1, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[saevel25]

16 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

This is a weird statement to make when Congress is controlled by the Republican party. 

Not really, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress

Half the time he's had a Congress divided. I do say some has to do with the democratic senate versus the republican house not getting a long. He was the one who ran as the guy who can bridge the divide. He always talked about it not being republican or democrat but just America. Yet he clearly lost that message when he finally got in office. 

I think the community organizer experience didn't help him much once he made it to the big leagues. 

 

[Mr. Desmond]

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Not really, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress

Half the time he's had a Congress divided. I do say some has to do with the democratic senate versus the republican house not getting a long. He was the one who ran as the guy who can bridge the divide. He always talked about it not being republican or democrat but just America. Yet he clearly lost that message when he finally got in office. 

I think the community organizer experience didn't help him much once he made it to the big leagues. 

 

Whoa... Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe the GOP sabotaged his Presidency at the cost of the country? They did not want Obama to succeed.

I've read plenty of stories where GOP Congressmen have stated to the WH that we like the bill, would vote for it, but our leaders won't allow it. 

So who lost the message? Who helped sabotaged the country? And how long can a President try to reconcile differences without a result before one gives up?

Yes, I know, Obama is also at fault ... he made mistakes. But Congress passes laws, and the last 4 years have been a "do nothing Congress" that outdoes the do nothings of prior generations. Where is tax reform? Where is reform to fix ObamaCare? Where is an infrastructure bill? Where is an immigration bill?

The current GOP rants and does nothing ... and that's why Trump is their frankenstein creation - the GOP created Trump by getting nothing done.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[jbishop15]

2 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Not really, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidents_and_control_of_Congress

Half the time he's had a Congress divided. I do say some has to do with the democratic senate versus the republican house not getting a long. He was the one who ran as the guy who can bridge the divide. He always talked about it not being republican or democrat but just America. Yet he clearly lost that message when he finally got in office. 

I think the community organizer experience didn't help him much once he made it to the big leagues. 

 

He lost the message? Really? You don't think that the Republican-controlled Congress pushed back against everything that he's tried to do? 

Blaming the President for the woes of Congress is just simply not fair. 

[Golfingdad]

Anywho ... Iowa Caucuses (still don't know exactly what they are )** are tonight, so I guess we'll finally get past round one of the game show "Are people really taking Trump seriously?" in just a few long hours.

And by the way, I'm a lot less confident now in my assertion that Trump will quickly become an also-ran than I was several months or even weeks ago.

** So I looked it up!   From wikipedia:

Quote

The caucuses are generally defined as "gatherings of neighbors." Rather than going to polls and casting ballots, Iowans gather at a set location in each of Iowa's 1,682 precincts. Typically, these meetings occur in schools, churches, public libraries and even individuals' houses. ... In addition to the voting and the presidential preference choices, caucus-goers begin the process of writing their parties’ platforms by introducing resolutions. ... 

Each precinct divides its delegate seats among the candidates in proportion to caucus goers' votes. Participants indicate their support for a particular candidate by standing in a designated area of the caucus site (forming a preference group). An area may also be designated for undecided participants. Then, for roughly 30 minutes, participants try to convince their neighbors to support their candidates. Each preference group might informally deputize a few members to recruit supporters from the other groups and, in particular, from among those undecided. Undecided participants might visit each preference group to ask its members about their candidate.

After 30 minutes, the electioneering is temporarily halted and the supporters for each candidate are counted. At this point, the caucus officials determine which candidates are viable. Depending on the number of county delegates to be elected, the viability threshold is 15% of attendees. For a candidate to receive any delegates from a particular precinct, he or she must have the support of at least the percentage of participants required by the viability threshold. Once viability is determined, participants have roughly another 30 minutes to realign: the supporters of inviable candidates may find a viable candidate to support, join together with supporters of another inviable candidate to secure a delegate for one of the two, or choose to abstain. This realignment is a crucial distinction of caucuses in that (unlike a primary) being a voter's second candidate of choice can help a candidate.

When the voting is closed, a final head count is conducted, and each precinct apportions delegates to the county convention. These numbers are reported to the state party, which counts the total number of delegates for each candidate and reports the results to the media. Most of the participants go home, leaving a few to finish the business of the caucus: each preference group elects its delegates, and then the groups reconvene to elect local party officers and discuss the platform. The delegates chosen by the precinct then go to a later caucus, the county convention, to choose delegates to the district convention and state convention. Most of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention are selected at the district convention, with the remaining ones selected at the state convention. Delegates to each level of convention are initially bound to support their chosen candidate but can later switch in a process very similar to what goes on at the precinct level; however, as major shifts in delegate support are rare, the media declares the candidate with the most delegates on the precinct caucus night the winner, and relatively little attention is paid to the later caucuses

So, basically ... exactly like our primary voting, except its all done at the same time in the evening instead of throughout the day, its been made (locally) public, and then we get to go all Henry Fonda on each other to convince everybody else that they are wrong and we are right.  Sounds like a blast!

[saevel25]

20 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

He lost the message? Really?

Yep. When he continually went up infront of the press and would bash the Republicans for not bowing down to his greatness and wisdom. I knew he had ZERO leaderships skills to do what he said, unify the divided congress. If I was thrown under the bus like that I would have flipped Obama the bird and voted No on everything. 

[Mr. Desmond]

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yep. When he continually went up infront of the press and would bash the Republicans for not bowing down to his greatness and wisdom. I knew he had ZERO leaderships skills to do what he said, unify the divided congress. If I was thrown under the bus like that I would have flipped Obama the bird and voted No on everything. 

How conveniently one forgets about how members of Congress were demeaning and noncooperative from the start as to Obama even though he won in a relative landslide.

Congress should not take it personally. Their job is to work for the people, despite their personal feelings. It's called being a professional. And they are paid well, now and into retirement for being professional. They forgot about that -- the last 8 years has been a mud slinging fest. That's why we have the Donald. Enough of this ... time to get on track. Forget the "we" v. "they." We are one nation. Let's ask the politicians to grow up and start acting like it.

[Golfingdad]

14 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yep. When he continually went up infront of the press and would bash the Republicans for not bowing down to his greatness and wisdom. I knew he had ZERO leaderships skills to do what he said, unify the divided congress. If I was thrown under the bus like that I would have flipped Obama the bird and voted No on everything. 

I'm with @jbishop15 on this one.  (We're also OT btw. ;))

Note that most of Obama's Republican bashing came AFTER exhaustive efforts, where Republicans had repeatedly (figuratively) already "flipped the bird and voted no on everything."

[jbishop15]

18 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yep. When he continually went up infront of the press and would bash the Republicans for not bowing down to his greatness and wisdom. I knew he had ZERO leaderships skills to do what he said, unify the divided congress. If I was thrown under the bus like that I would have flipped Obama the bird and voted No on everything. 

What an interesting interpretation. 

Back on topic: I think Trump wins the Iowa caucus tonight by a fairly wide margin. His poll numbers are the astronomic highs of a few months ago, but I can't see either Cruz or Rubio catching up. On the Dem side, I think it'll be close to a tie.

[boogielicious]

Nice article on How the Iowa Caucuses Work.

http://www.theonion.com/graphic/how-iowa-caucuses-work-52271

Quote

The votes cast in the Iowa caucuses on Monday night mark the official beginning of the 2016 election season, but the specifics of the state’s selection process can be confusing to voters who don’t live there. Here, The Onion answers the most common questions about how the Iowa caucuses work:

Q: What is a caucus?
A: A caucus is a system of voting for people who wish casting a ballot could be three hours longer and include being lectured to.

Q: How do caucuses work?
A: Local representatives from each presidential campaign make impassioned speeches about which corner of the Grace Lutheran basement voters should stand closest to.

Q: What’s the difference between a caucus and a primary?
A: In a primary, the presidential nominees are chosen by the 6 percent of eligible voters who bother to participate, while in a caucus, the nominees are chosen by the 2 percent of eligible voters who bother to participate.

Q: Why do the Iowa caucuses matter?
A: They provide the first real gauge of whether candidates have been worthwhile investments for corporate and individual megadonors.

Q: Who can attend the Iowa caucuses?
A: Registered party members Level 7 or higher.

Q: How many precincts are there? 
A: There are 1,681 official precincts, though there are rumored to be thousands more off the books.

Q: How are winners determined?
A: At the end of the night, votes from all precincts are placed in a jar together, and whichever candidate comes closest to guessing the total number of votes is awarded the state’s delegates.

Q: How can I find my closest caucus location? 
A: Place a child of hearty disposition upon the palisade where the woodcock nests. By dawnbreak, you shall have your answer.

Q: When do they start? 
A: At the sound of my whistle.

Q: When will we know the winner?
A: Once all the voters have gone to bed, results will be tabulated and left under each constituent’s pillow for them to find in the morning.

Q: Will I have the opportunity to say “Aye” or “Nay”?
A: Oh, boy, get ready!

Q: How do I engage with other people at the caucus?
A: Just go right up and talk to them. No need to be shy; just say who you are and be yourself. You’ll do great!

 

[Mr. Desmond]

I think Iowa is a weird state in which to start the primary season. We ought to have a Super Tuesday with Iowa being one of several states. They do not reflect the nation ... at all, other than a minority. Just like Texas does not reflect the nation by itself. But put some states together, get it going another month down the road and you might have something.

I don't know what to expect tonight ... from what I understand, people are changing their minds like the weather in Texas... Do polls matter? Tonight, we'll know if they do for Trump.

[saevel25]

30 minutes ago, jbishop15 said:

Back on topic: I think Trump wins the Iowa caucus tonight by a fairly wide margin. His poll numbers are the astronomic highs of a few months ago, but I can't see either Cruz or Rubio catching up. On the Dem side, I think it'll be close to a tie.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

As of right now Trump has a has a 4.7 lead over Cruz. Rubio has made up 6.1%. As it gets closer to the Primary vote the only upward trend now is Rubio. 

Another issue is, how many people who support Trump will actually vote? We've had angry demographics before and they just sit on their thumbs. 

Should be interesting to watch, which I will not be doing :)