Whos winning US election?

[Elim Garak]

If neoliberals like Hillary understand the economy so well, why are they always crashing it?

It's cyclical, you know.

[Alteiry]

Goldman Sachs currently.

Let's see how long these fucking parasites will survive after the Great Depression 2.0 hits later this year.

- - - Updated - - -

It's cyclical, you know.

Except that this is blatantly false, between the implementation of FDR's New Deal Reforms in the 1930s and the neoliberal deregulation frenzy of the 1970s, Wall Street didn't crash once.

[Draco-Onis]

If neoliberals like Hillary understand the economy so well, why are they always crashing it?

I am not sure where you are getting your information from but the economy almost always does better under a democratic government. You can attribute that to whatever you want but republicans have a longer crashing the economy streak.

Let's see how long these fucking parasites will survive after the Great Depression 2.0 hits later this year.

They will do amazing those guys are way too connected to ever lose money or pay for any mistakes.

[Fang7986]

No matter who ends up winning we all lose

[Elim Garak]

Let's see how long these fucking parasites will survive after the Great Depression 2.0 hits later this year.

Doing fine since 1869, they've seen the Depression 1.0 and they earned some profit during mortgage crisis too.

[Fang7986]

Really enjoyed your article.



If this isn't the cornerstone of Hillary's campaign, I really don't know what is. "Vote for me, because if you don't, you'll get a Republican." Fear-mongering of this nature is usually a Republican tactic.

And what a useless line of reasoning that is, especially once you look at her voting record. You didn't vote in a Democrat instead of a Republican, you voted in a Republican that says she's a democrat during the campaign trail.

Maybe it was forgivable to believe that with Bill, I don't know. But I do know it's ridiculous to believe her bullshit at this point.

You forgot Hillary's other slogan "Woman should vote for me not because they think I'm qualified, but just because I'm also a woman"

[Draco-Onis]

No matter who ends up winning we all lose

I think that's the saddest part of the whole thing, this election we are basically choosing just the best of two really bad options. It's sad that we can't get a valid third party option here in the U.S.

[Grummgug]

We know it is impossible for the democrats to win the 2016 elections. Even if they win the white house, the republicans are assured of controlling the House. So the democrats will not be able will not be able to advance their agenda. it will be gridlock. It might be possible for the republicans to win the 2016 elections. They might walk away with total power by winning both houses of congress and the white house.

We either get the GOP running everything or gridlock. No democrat victory is possible.

I suppose democrats might claim victory if Hillary wins, but that will evaporate the moment they realize they cannot actually pass new laws. She'll just be getting out that veto pen a lot.

The core of the problem here is the democrat party has a small tent. They have abandoned rural america, which is voting republican in ever larger numbers. That means the democrats cannot win the House and thus cannot govern. Bernie Sanders isn't the answer either. The democrats are a fragmented party. if the democrats choose Bernie Sanders, they can forget ever winning congress again. If they go with moderates like Hillary, maybe they can find a path to winning congress but their radical left internet base will revolt.

[Blur4stuff]

Sanders has a reasonable chance. Clinton has the advantage, but don't buy into the dnc/msm propaganda. They've done just about everything to make voters think Sanders can't win.

[Grummgug]

The core of the democrats problem is Bernie Sanders is basically trying to buy votes by offering free stuff. Rural America doesn't see the need to give up freedoms to take Bernie's free stuff. They'd rather be left alone. Wealth Inequality is not a big issue to farmers - farmers think they are wealthy by owning a nice plot of land out in the middle of nowhere able to do what they please. They aren't worried about minimum wage. So his message drives off rural America. The way we vote for congress, it is required to win rural America to win congress. Rural America has a strong voice in voting for our government (and it should). If Bernie Sanders wins, the republicans will run congress and Bernie will accomplish nothing.

[Linkedblade]

It's a trick question because this isn't the election. These are the primaries and caucuses for the political parties to determine their candidate. The general election is on November 8, 2016.

[Seiklis]

We know it is impossible for the democrats to win the 2016 elections. Even if they win the white house, the republicans are assured of controlling the House. So the democrats will not be able will not be able to advance their agenda. it will be gridlock. It might be possible for the republicans to win the 2016 elections. They might walk away with total power by winning both houses of congress and the white house.

We either get the GOP running everything or gridlock. No democrat victory is possible.

I suppose democrats might claim victory if Hillary wins, but that will evaporate the moment they realize they cannot actually pass new laws. She'll just be getting out that veto pen a lot.

The core of the problem here is the democrat party has a small tent. They have abandoned rural america, which is voting republican in ever larger numbers. That means the democrats cannot win the House and thus cannot govern. Bernie Sanders isn't the answer either. The democrats are a fragmented party. if the democrats choose Bernie Sanders, they can forget ever winning congress again. If they go with moderates like Hillary, maybe they can find a path to winning congress but their radical left internet base will revolt.

Yea, normally I'd agree with you. In normal circumstances, a Republican loss in 2016 would probably be more beneficial than a win. There will be a backlash against the ruling party in 2018 just like 2010 where Republican Governors and State legislatures maintain control and then get control of the district drawing process after the 2020 census. This would be a complete repeat of the current decade where the Republicans could partisan gerrymander to their hearts content because they have such large majorities in the state assemblies. Hell this even allowed state assemblies and governors to change the equation with "Perrymandering" in Texas where redistricting could take place between censuses.

The problem is circumstances have changed. If the Republicans lose the Presidency in 2016, even a moderate like Merrick Garland is the nominee, there is a real chance gerrymandering as a whole could be ruled unconstitutional. The few court cases on the subject haven't been tested since 2001 but a court flip could absolutely change how districts are drawn as a whole. The question is still though whether Democrats will be as short sighted as in the past and only care about racial gerrymandering instead of partisan gerrymandering. In Shaw v Reno for instance, Janet Reno only vetoed North Carolina's district map because it only had one majority-minority district, not because of any other gerrymandering going on. So long as the South met their racial quota, they could partisan gerrymander to their heart's content. I actually was fine with the decision to gut the Voting Rights Act as it could finally lead to a ruling on the real problem with partisan gerrymandering.

Scalia's death changed everything. It's possible nothing will change as Easley v Cromartie didn't exactly set a great standard as drawing districts for political reasons was given more or less a green light, by the liberals +O'Connor on the court. But with this latest decade showing the consequences of the amount of control gerrymandering can give a party, and give that party for an entire decade, it wouldn't surprise me if a liberal court shut the entire political nature of districts down.

[Garnier Fructis]

We either get the GOP running everything or gridlock. No democrat victory is possible.

Gridlock is infinitely better.

[borrborr]

not trump

[Gothicshark]

Who is winning the U.S election? and when does it end? I'm not from the U.S so Idk, but I do hope trump wins just to see what happens

Depend on who the nominations are.

Trump vs Clinton = Trump by a landslide
Trump vs Sanders = Sanders by a Landslide
Any any other Republican vs either Democrat = Democrat close race.

[alexw]

We know it is impossible for the democrats to win the 2016 elections. Even if they win the white house, the republicans are assured of controlling the House. So the democrats will not be able will not be able to advance their agenda. it will be gridlock. It might be possible for the republicans to win the 2016 elections. They might walk away with total power by winning both houses of congress and the white house.

We either get the GOP running everything or gridlock. No democrat victory is possible.

I suppose democrats might claim victory if Hillary wins, but that will evaporate the moment they realize they cannot actually pass new laws. She'll just be getting out that veto pen a lot.

The core of the problem here is the democrat party has a small tent. They have abandoned rural america, which is voting republican in ever larger numbers. That means the democrats cannot win the House and thus cannot govern. Bernie Sanders isn't the answer either. The democrats are a fragmented party. if the democrats choose Bernie Sanders, they can forget ever winning congress again. If they go with moderates like Hillary, maybe they can find a path to winning congress but their radical left internet base will revolt.

What a load of delusional nonsense, but then again it fits in with your delusional signature about global warming.

[Rizendragon]

Depend on who the nominations are.

Trump vs Clinton = Trump by a landslide
Trump vs Sanders = Sanders by a Landslide
Any any other Republican vs either Democrat = Democrat close race.

This is my thinking as well. The young will not vote for Hillary...

[Deleted]

trump all the way!

really if i were American i don't know who i would vote for, all of your candidates are so immensely unlikable, out of any of them i probably most agree with Trump though.

[Underverse]

Sanders is by far the least divisive and most honest of the bunch. On these qualities alone, I would prefer him to any other candidate that is currently running.

[Auxora]

We're all winning!

In all srsness, it's too early to start even projecting that until at least July. To summarize the election process, despite all the media spam...the final 2 candidates won't be decided on until July. And until then, neither candidate is really campaigning on with ads on tv nationwide. So any theoretical polls of x>y or y>z, are pretty meaningless. Head to head polls are simply not at all accurate this early. In fact the polls generally haven't been that accurate even now just in the party elections.

Or, if you mean who's winning the party elections...so far Hillary Clinton has a decent lead on the Democratic (left) side and Trump has a very sizable lead on the Republican (right) side. But without going into detail the whole process is very prone to finagling of the numbers, so we won't know really until July what happens especially with Trump. It's going to be a big fight in the party.

Then in November we vote on the winner between those 2.