Presidential Race 2016

[Braivo]

2 minutes ago, Ernest Jones said:

So the guy who is doing this:

And so, Trump openly stoked racial tensions and appealed to the latent misogyny of a base that thinks of Hillary as the world’s most horrible ballbuster.

Gets your vote? That's kinda...gross. 

Those are the reporters words, not his. There is nothing in his words to indicate he is a racist or misogynist. If I felt he was either I would not be voting for him. He simply triggers the liberal media into interpreting his words into their worst nightmare. 

[Mr. Desmond]

On April 3, 2016 at 9:52 PM, newtogolf said:

I didn't mention anything about the allegations under which they surrendered their license, nor did I state they couldn't reapply.  I was merely pointing out that neither one of them was earning an income at their profession (law) during the time their net worth increased 7 times.  

I think it was a bad argument. You tried to bring it in under public service and the implication was that he profited while President. Even if that was not your intent, that's how I took it, and apparently others took it in a similar vein.

He sold two books and had earned some big bucks that way. He made almost $180k as Senator and then $400k as Pres for 7 years; take 1/3 of that as taxes, and he has $2.1m+ less personal expenses. I assume they don't spend a lot since the taxpayers pick up most of his daily living expenses.

Now the Clintons are a different matter -- stories from reputable sources such as NYT have painted them as entitled primadonnas. It is about the money.

Oh, this is the Presidential Race thread.... okay, no to Trump, no to Cruz, no to Hillary, no to Bernie ... where is a worthwhile candidate ? Is Kasich the compromise? Or does a dark horse appear in the convention, and given the GOP, does one just want a Dem Prez with a GOP Congress to ensure that the wheels don't come off completely?

Trump may lose Wisconsin, and we will be privileged with Cruz's smarmy smiles for a few days until the Donald takes NY.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[saevel25]

31 minutes ago, Braivo said:

He will get 100% of it for sure. It took blacks turning out in huge numbers to elect Obama, I am guessing the same can happen with whites for Trump. He will get a lot of crossover from working class Dems as well. 

I think it will be a tough question for some Republicans who just can't stomach voting for Trump versus letting Hillary into office. My dad told me a few of his friends, who vote Republican a lot, will just not vote. They can't sign their name behind Trump even if it means letting Hillary win. I am still not certain a third party candidate from the Libertarian front doesn't take some percentages away from Trump. 

---

If you look at the electoral map, it will be an uphill battle for Trump, as it usually is for most Republicans. 

Looking at the past 4 elections a Republican Candidate has locked up 22 states with 180 electoral votes. 

Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, N. Dakota, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, W. Virginia. 

The Democrats have locked up 19 states worth 242 electoral votes. 

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, Minnesota. 

So the remaining 116 electoral votes are coming from. 

Indiana, N. Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa

If you go by most likely with some weighting going on some close match ups in the 2012 results (states who were leaning more right than in 2008)

Indiana goes Republican
N. Carolina goes Republican
Virginia goes Republican

Colorado is a Toss Up
Florida is a Toss Up
Nevada is a Toss Up
Ohio is a Toss Up 

New Hampshire is Democrat
New Mexico is Democrat
Iowa is Democrat

That puts Hillary at 257 and Trump at 219

Hillary probably only needs 13 electoral votes to win unless she somehow loses New York. I am not sure how the north east is going to play out. 

The crazy thing is that Clinton might not need either Ohio or Florida to win if she takes Nevada and Colorado. Wouldn't that be the kicker. The two states that routinely have been battle ground states are not a deciding factor. 

 

 

 

 

 

[newtogolf]

47 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

I think it was a bad argument. You tried to bring it in under public service and the implication was that he profited while President. Even if that was not your intent, that's how I took it, and apparently others took it in a similar vein.

He sold two books and had earned some big bucks that way. He made almost $180k as Senator and then $400k as Pres for 7 years; take 1/3 of that as taxes, and he has $2.1m+ less personal expenses. I assume they don't spend a lot since the taxpayers pick up most of his daily living expenses.

Now the Clintons are a different matter -- stories from reputable sources such as NYT have painted them as entitled primadonnas. It is about the money.

Oh, this is the Presidential Race thread.... okay, no to Trump, no to Cruz, no to Hillary, no to Bernie ... where is a worthwhile candidate ? Is Kasich the compromise? Or does a dark horse appear in the convention, and given the GOP, does one just want a Dem Prez with a GOP Congress to ensure that the wheels don't come off completely?

Trump may lose Wisconsin, and we will be privileged with Cruz's smarmy smiles for a few days until the Donald takes NY.

How do you account for the other $3 - $4M?  

[Braivo]

1 hour ago, saevel25 said:

I think it will be a tough question for some Republicans who just can't stomach voting for Trump versus letting Hillary into office. My dad told me a few of his friends, who vote Republican a lot, will just not vote. They can't sign their name behind Trump even if it means letting Hillary win. I am still not certain a third party candidate from the Libertarian front doesn't take some percentages away from Trump. 

---

If you look at the electoral map, it will be an uphill battle for Trump, as it usually is for most Republicans. 

Looking at the past 4 elections a Republican Candidate has locked up 22 states with 180 electoral votes. 

Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, N. Dakota, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Georgia, Montana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, W. Virginia. 

The Democrats have locked up 19 states worth 242 electoral votes. 

California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, District of Columbia, Minnesota. 

So the remaining 116 electoral votes are coming from. 

Indiana, N. Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa

If you go by most likely with some weighting going on some close match ups in the 2012 results (states who were leaning more right than in 2008)

Indiana goes Republican
N. Carolina goes Republican
Virginia goes Republican

Colorado is a Toss Up
Florida is a Toss Up
Nevada is a Toss Up
Ohio is a Toss Up 

New Hampshire is Democrat
New Mexico is Democrat
Iowa is Democrat

That puts Hillary at 257 and Trump at 219

Hillary probably only needs 13 electoral votes to win unless she somehow loses New York. I am not sure how the north east is going to play out. 

The crazy thing is that Clinton might not need either Ohio or Florida to win if she takes Nevada and Colorado. Wouldn't that be the kicker. The two states that routinely have been battle ground states are not a deciding factor. 

I really think Trump brings some traditional Democrat states into play like PA, MI, and NY. Blue collar states have been turning out in large numbers for Trump, with many of them crossover votes. 

[phillyk]

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

I really think Trump brings some traditional Democrat states into play like PA, MI, and NY. Blue collar states have been turning out in large numbers for Trump, with many of them crossover votes. 

It's probably just the area I'm from since every single county in WA state voted Bernie, but I have not yet met any democrat that is voting for Trump.  I still think it would be very odd for that to happen. I'm sure there are a few, but only a small few.  I guess I also hear of Republicans voting for Clinton over trump if it came to it. So it could be just a wash in the end.

[Braivo]

5 minutes ago, phillyk said:

It's probably just the area I'm from since every single county in WA state voted Bernie, but I have not yet met any democrat that is voting for Trump.  I still think it would be very odd for that to happen. I'm sure there are a few, but only a small few.  I guess I also hear of Republicans voting for Clinton over trump if it came to it. So it could be just a wash in the end.

I think it is very, very unlikely that pro-life conservatives (the most likely not to like Trump) will vote for a pro-choice candidate like Hillary. Very unlikely. They might stay home at best, but in the end I believe most will show up and cast a vote for Trump, even if in their eyes it is a "lesser of two evils" vote. Especially since Trump is likely to pick a conservative legislator as his running mate. 

Here in the blue collar Midwest there is a great deal of support for Trump from traditionally Democrat rich areas. His immigration and trade stance resonates loudly with autoworkers who have watched their factories move to Mexico. 

My parents are lifelong Democrats, my Dad is a union retiree. They both support Trump now. Many of the folks at Trump's rallies are not registered Republicans, and he is winning by much bigger margins in states with open primaries, likely because Dems are coming out to support him. 

[rehmwa]

On 4/1/2016 at 1:14 PM, Braivo said:

I am pretty tired of the anti-Trump stuff, I want to hear more pro - xxxx stuff. 

I've been tired of "anti-candidate" stuff and want to hear more pro-xxx stuff - for a couple decades now.

I think this election is much like the others - except volume has been turned up to 11.

[saevel25]

1 minute ago, Braivo said:

I really think Trump brings some traditional Democrat states into play like PA, MI, and NY. Blue collar states have been turning out in large numbers for Trump, with many of them crossover votes. 

I don't think Trump takes New York. Out of the four states you high lighted Clinton has a monumental lead over Trump in New York, on average by +20! I think Hillary is very much liked in New York. New York isn't a traditional mid-west manufacturing type of liberal state. It's a typical big money liberal state like Illinois with Chicago.

Ohio will be tough for Trump. He didn't do well in the big population areas like he did in Detroit in Michigan (to the point of your job loss in the car industry). Ohio has not brought back many manufacturing jobs. You'd think he would get more votes in places like Cinci, Dayton and Toledo. 

Florida is always a toss-up. I say flip a coin. 

Let's say he splits it. I think he has a better shot in Michigan than in PA. Just more jobs lost in the car industry. 

That puts it at 241 to 235 Hillary with a 6 point lead. 

Now this makes it much closer. With Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada as toss up states. 

I think if he doesn't get one of those two states, Michigan or PA then I think it's Hillary's win. 

 

 

[newtogolf]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I don't think Trump takes New York. Out of the four states you high lighted Clinton has a monumental lead over Trump in New York, on average by +20! I think Hillary is very much liked in New York. New York isn't a traditional mid-west manufacturing type of liberal state. It's a typical big money liberal state like Illinois with Chicago.

Ohio will be tough for Trump. He didn't do well in the big population areas like he did in Detroit in Michigan (to the point of your job loss in the car industry). Ohio has not brought back many manufacturing jobs. You'd think he would get more votes in places like Cinci, Dayton and Toledo. 

Florida is always a toss-up. I say flip a coin. 

Let's say he splits it. I think he has a better shot in Michigan than in PA. Just more jobs lost in the car industry. 

That puts it at 241 to 235 Hillary with a 6 point lead. 

Now this makes it much closer. With Colorado, Ohio, Florida, and Nevada as toss up states. 

I think if he doesn't get one of those two states, Michigan or PA then I think it's Hillary's win. 

 

 

The 5 Boroughs will vote for Hillary and Sanders, Long Island and upstate will vote for Trump and Sanders.  

[Mr. Desmond]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

How do you account for the other $3 - $4M?  

Can we account? That's tough. But from reading an article that reviewed his tax returns, he made a few million from books before he was President and put money in funds in which we can all invest. He generated money from his investments. What has the market done since 2007? It's gone up. If you had money to invest and did well, then one made money on their money.

From what I've seen of Obama, he's run a fairly ethical administration in comparison with others - no big scandals, No Iran-Contra, No S&L Scam (Reagan)  No Whitewater, Travelgate, Sex (Clinton),No Let's Get those WMD's, No Katrina (Bush) ... Hillary led the charge on Libya, and really, Banghazi? That was a FUBAR in which 6 Congressional Investigations have found nothing. Nothing there but to bring up the bogeyman, because the GOP needs something and Obama is relatively speaking - fairly clean.

There is plenty of fault to find with the Pres other than the above. He and Congress are partners in this do nothing era and I think historians will place most of the finger pointing at an out-of-control radical right that GOP leaders could not control.

Presidential Race? Gosh, I am out on this one ... It's turkey v turkey, just don't pick the dried up turkey.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Desmond said:

Account? From reading an article that reviewed his tax returns, he made a few million from books before he was President and put money in funds in which we can all invest. He generated money from his investments. What has the market done since 2007? It's gone up. If you had money to invest and did well, then one made money on their money.

From what I've seen of Obama, he's run a fairly ethical administration in comparison with others - no big scandals, No Iran-Contra, No S&L Scam (Reagan)  No Whitewater, Travelgate, Sex (Clinton),No Let's Get those WMD's, No Katrina (Bush) ... Hillary led the charge on Libya, and really, Banghazi? That was a FUBAR in which 6 Congressional Investigations have found nothing. Nothing there but to bring up the bogeyman, because the GOP needs something and Obama is relatively speaking - fairly clean.

There is plenty of fault to find with the Pres other than the above. He and Congress are partners in this do nothing era and I think historians will place most of the finger pointing at an out-of-control radical right that GOP leaders could not control.

Presidential Race? Gosh, I am out on this one ... It's turkey v turkey, just don't pick the dried up turkey.

1. ATF Fast and Furious
2. IRS Scandal Targeting Obama enemies
3. Misrepresenting ACA and back room deals.
4. Bengazi - mostly Hillary but the stink is on Obama too for covering it up
5. Veterans Affairs $6M waste at conferences in Orlando
6. The Iran deal

I wouldn't call that scandal free.  

[Mr. Desmond]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

1. ATF Fast and Furious
2. IRS Scandal Targeting Obama enemies
3. Misrepresenting ACA and back room deals.
4. Bengazi - mostly Hillary but the stink is on Obama too for covering it up
5. Veterans Affairs $6M waste at conferences in Orlando
6. The Iran deal

I wouldn't call that scandal free.  

Hmmm, what I expected. Relative to other admins, small potatoes, and some listed is not scandalous or unethical but a bad bill or strategy in your opinon. Gosh, if I could list every Reagan or Bush transgression, or even Clinton.

1. IRS was not a scandal - it involved right wing groups abusing the tax exempt organization status.

2. ACA - the bill was bad enough but no scandal. Every bill has agreements. All of this should have been taken care of under a Technical Amendments Act just like every overhaul of the Tax Code.

3.Benghazi - much ado about an ambassador ignoring security threats, and lack of info at the front end. Congress has had 6 6!!!! investigations and spent more time and money than the Warren Commission on JFK's assassination. That's how ridiculous it is - the GOP already admitted they are playing politics with this because of Hillary.

4. Veterans Affairs - an Obama thing or just a continuing albatross for every administration?

5. Iran Deal? C'mon, lol. It is a strategy to delay Iran and nothing more, and possibly to get a diplomatic exchange working

6. Fast and Furious - sounds like a strategy that failed. ATF - any wonder?

It's all in the eye of the beholder. I like some of what Obama has done, think he left issues unfinished, and did not stick through with getting a deal made on others ... and those who intensely dislike Obama will pin blame on him at every chance. IMHO, Reagan's scandals were worse and violated the law as were Bush's. Too bad Reagan's victory over the USSR was semi-wasted. Clinton was his own undoing. You've really got nothing if that's what you've got. But that's only my opinion.

Every presidential race and administration will have questionable doings. Looking back on these issues since 1969, Obama's Admin is fairly ethical ... no one is clean, and we are not talking a high standard here... lol

Edited April 4, 2016 by Mr. Desmond

[Fourputt]

Anyone who has a clue how to put the health care system back together has a shot at my vote.

[boogielicious]

14 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

Anyone who has a clue how to put the health care system back together has a shot at my vote.

We could always go back to when these folks weren't paying anything and getting free emergency care at hospitals if you would like.  This is what prompted Romney to have the MA system created in the first place. I'd rather have them pay for themselves instead of me paying for them.

[saevel25]

25 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

We could always go back to when these folks weren't paying anything and getting free emergency care at hospitals if you would like.  This is what prompted Romney to have the MA system created in the first place. I'd rather have them pay for themselves instead of me paying for them.

Yea the situation at the hospitals was a mess. There is real no easy fix for it. In the end if you have a pre-existing condition health care companies will just price you out of the plans so you just don't select them. They can't deny you, but they can set whatever premiums they want. I don't know the answer to this situation, but I don't think either side has a good answer either. 

 

[Gunther]

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

We could always go back to when these folks weren't paying anything and getting free emergency care at hospitals if you would like.  This is what prompted Romney to have the MA system created in the first place. I'd rather have them pay for themselves instead of me paying for them.

There are, as of end of last year, 40MM Americans without healthcare coverage (per Gallup) and they're not turning them away from the hospitals, so you're still paying for them.

[Elmer]

22 hours ago, boogielicious said:

We could always go back to when these folks weren't paying anything and getting free emergency care at hospitals if you would like.  This is what prompted Romney to have the MA system created in the first place. I'd rather have them pay for themselves instead of me paying for them.

We are going to pay for the people who walk into a hospital uninsured. ACA may not be great, but it has been a better solution than any legislation proposed by republicans.
Bernie has indicated he would turn the system into single payer, which is what I think it was intended to be until Obama compromised with house republicans to get the bill to a vote and eventual pass.

Some light economic reading regarding Trumps wall.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/economic-ramifications-trumps-border-wall-proposal/story?id=38161205