Whos winning US election?

[TirielWoW]

Jerry Springer, at this point.

[Adam Jensen]

Democrats primary voters prefer a self-proclaimed socialist over Hillary Clinton so I don't see how she beats Trump or Cruz.

Because:
1. Only the right wing wets their pants over socialism
2. Cruz and Trump are both extremist morons.

[Raeph]

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.

Latest Poll Averages from RCP:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tial_race.html

Trump v Clinton - Clinton +11.2
Cruz v Clinton - Clinton +2.9
Kasich v Clinton - Kasich +6.5

Trump v Sanders - Sanders +17.5
Cruz v Sanders - Sanders +8.4
Kasich v Sanders - Sanders +1.0

Looks like It will be the Democrats race to lose this election cycle. Granted until Republicans do something reasonable about illegal immigration (something not involving mass deportation) and have some idea of how to deal with urban poverty, then Republicans will continue to lose national elections. They cannot compete with the Democrats with urban voters enough to really put large population centers in play.

On the flip side though, at least for this generation, Rural America is in the hands of the Republicans so the house at least will stay Red. The Senate will flop back and forth but should be competitive without a supermajority for quite some time.

Who ever get to be President in November better be able to manage, and massage, the other 535 egos on the hill with them or we'll be under another 4-8 years of gridlock again. Bad news given how much stuff needs to get done, legislatively, from immigration, infrastructure, energy regulation, healthcare adjustments and national defense.

Those who say "I'd rather have gridlock." join the voices of the extremists, who would rather burn everything down around them, than settle for less than 100% of their demands. This goes for both sides of the aisle. The Freedom Caucus is the current loudest voice in this matter, on the Republican side, but also Harry Reid prevented dozens of bills from getting a hearing while he was Majority Leader of the Senate after they passed the newly Republican controlled House from 2010 onward.

Too much stuff needs to get done for any more gridlock regardless of who is causing it.

[Caolela]

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

Yes, and what's interesting for the GW deniers is this news recently:

Rockefeller Family Fund Divesting from Fossil Fuels, Slams Exxon

March 25, 2016


The Rockefeller Family Fund has announced it is divesting from fossil fuels, starting with its holdings of ExxonMobil. The fund said that given the realities of climate change, "There is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons." The family fund singled out Exxon, criticizing the company of "morally reprehensible conduct" for lying to investors and the public about its knowledge of climate change.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/2...ls_slams_exxon

The Rockefellers, not exactly hard leftists, giving up on oil/fossil fuels tells a lot. After all, it was John D. Rockefeller who started Standard Oil in the 1800s, and is how the family came to be filthy rich, the richest in the world then.

Human-caused global warming is here to stay, and is only going to get worse. It's far too late even if we severely curtailed all industrial activity now (which would never happen) - the temp rise is already baked into the cake. Even institutions like the Pentagon/US military (that bastion of socialism!) are quite aware of it, and have been preparing for some time.

Trump would likely beat Clinton since the public is fairly anti-establishment right now, even though either one would be a disaster. People are sick of getting lied to and screwed by the likes of the Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas, backed by their propagandists in the Main-Stream Media (but they're shilling like mad for Trump as well, all except Sanders). Trump vs. Sanders would likely be close.

[akris15]

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

Yeah but they don't generally vote anyways honestly 2008 was the only time in recent history where they came out in force. I don't know why people have trump beating clinton other than "gut feelings" but right now all general election polling, prediction markets, the general electorial college map is clearly not in favor for trump (at best all he can win is NC and NH from the "battleground states" and even current poling shows that-hes a fool thinking he could put a blue state like NY back into play), the republicans already showed their hand attacking clinton with bengazi/emails/corruption/kitchen sink so she is at her support floor with the best republican can hope to further damage her is an indictment which a justice department under Obama won't let happen and republicans are secretly planning to screw trump over in the general if he gets the nomination (watch them give Trump minimal resources and double down on protecting vunerable senators like Portman and McCain). Cruz has a better shot at beating clinton and even then its not going to happen.

Basically:

Clinton>trump
Clinton>cruz
Clinton<Rubio if he was still in
Clinton<Kasich
Sanders>trump
Sanders>=Other republican (only reason I am putting this as a push with a narrow sanders victory is I know the attack ads would be devastating by republicans trying to paint him as some sort of anti-american communist with the general public being dumb as they are would eat that up. In the end Sanders would be more like Kerry because sanders seems to be too nice of a guy to play ball against that type of campaign and will be damage because of it)

[Deletedaccount1]

I think the nominees are most likely going to be Trump and Hillary and from then on it is hard to say. I was rooting for Cruz, I think he still has a chance albeit a small one.

As for the debates, Clinton has an advantage on foreign policy questions unless Trump gets his shit together but I think he will do well on things like economic questions and I doubt they can fight much on it since Trump is a democrat when it comes to the economy.

However, I think that if a terrorist attack happens right before the election that Trump will win because Democrats are pathetically weak on the issue.

[akris15]

However, I think that if a terrorist attack happens right before the election that Trump will win because Democrats are pathetically weak on the issue.

That's this year's potential October surprise and yes that would be a game changer

[Caolela]

I don't know why people have trump beating clinton other than "gut feelings" but right now all general election polling, prediction markets, the general electorial college map is clearly not in favor for trump (at best all he can win is NC and NH from the "battleground states" and even current poling shows that-hes a fool thinking he could put a blue state like NY back into play)...

Well, not really. Clinton is weaker against Trump than Sanders.

[akris15]

Well, not really. Clinton is weaker against Trump than Sanders.

Just a shortlist:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/louis-j...l-map-forecast

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...nton-5491.html

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/...on-2016/winner (gambling website fyi)

[Caolela]

Using the RealClearPolitics.com poll archive, we found seven national surveys since Jan. 1 that tested both Clinton and Sanders against Trump in a general-election contest. Here’s the rundown. For each poll, the candidate who runs stronger against Trump is listed in bold.

The chart shows that Sanders has a point. Of the seven polls in 2016 that tested both Democratic candidates, Sanders ran stronger against Trump in six of them. (In one case, the USA Today/Suffolk poll, Trump beat both, but beat Sanders by slightly less.)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...eats-donald-t/

And what a lot of these polls are not or cannot take into consideration is the "anti" feeling among many voters now, both on the right and the left, which gives Clinton a disadvantage.

[akris15]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...eats-donald-t/

Like I said above right now Sanders does have a better shot at winning right now but here is the thing. Republicans have not unloaded on Bernie yet because there is no point to attack him directly. Right now, say what you want to say about the democratic nomination process, the democrats have basically gave Clinton the crown since day 1. There is zero point to directly attack Bernie except for a minor jab here or there to score cheap points on the republican side. This allows him to have a much higher voter satisfaction rating because he started out as a general unknown and even then he still a bit unknown based on current polling (not as bad at it once was but I haven't looked into that data recently). If he does look like hes going to get the nomination I expect the republicans would unload on him on cheap dirty tactics and making sure he looks to be some sort of communist by the end of October and due to how the general public acts I know they would eat that up.

I actually talked to an old republican "friend" of mine a few weeks ago who now works in the media production field in which he helps perform political based focus groups in Ohio. Based on what we were talking about we came around to talk about that his one of the early things they noticed in regards to Ohio politics that topics related to "communism and USSR" played negatively to those possible Bernie voters and enraged designated conservative voters. There is no doubt in my mind if he goes to the general this would be unleashed and I fear that his popularity could fade quickly once they try to make him Comrade Bernie.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Good, the establishment GOP leaders deserve a nightmare too.

For as much as people whine about "the establishment" they can't really point out what it's done that's so awful. It's not perfect, and I'd say the biggest issue is the money in it, which Trump certainly has no intention of fixing. So really, the biggest complaint people have about the establishment is something Trump isn't even going to fix.

[Healing Rain]

The only thing Hillary has going for her is her last name. Once people look past her last name they will see how abysmal of a choice she is.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Well, not really. Clinton is weaker against Trump than Sanders.

Mostly because Trump and Sanders are both populists of their respective parties, and when being a populist is someone's most important issue, they're going to go for Trump over Hillary, although more likely to go for Sanders than Trump, because he's aiming at addressing the actual problems people have with "the establishment" while Trump wants to... build a wall.

[Grummgug]

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 democrats had absolutely no issue with gerrymandering when they used it to control the congress for decades. Its only been since the 2010 that its suddenly a problem. The democrats broke the rules of fair play for generations. Now they don't like it when its used against them. Too bad. The democrats have absolutely no moral high ground to stand on.

Its the same thing with executive orders. When Bush used executive orders, they screamed that Bush was trying to be dictator. Then when Obama used executive orders, they shrug and its not an issue.

Any attempt to get moralistic about gerrymandering or even bringing it up as a topic deserves derision.

[PACOX]

The only thing Hillary has going for her is her last name. Once people look past her last name they will see how abysmal of a choice she is.

But wasn't she a senator and secretary of state? That doesn't count for anything?

[Grummgug]

Human-caused global warming is here to stay, and is only going to get worse. It's far too late even if we severely curtailed all industrial activity now (which would never happen) - the temp rise is already baked into the cake. Even institutions like the Pentagon/US military (that bastion of socialism!) are quite aware of it, and have been preparing for some time.

No, that's just wrong. That's climate extremist crazy-talk.

1. Solar power will become more powerful and efficient than fossil fuels in the 2030s. We're almost there. There will be no further need for large scale fossil fuel use once this happens. Fossil fuel use is about to collapse.
2. Scientists have already run the numbers on what happens if this occurs. The global temperature will increase about 0.6c for the next 40 years. (altho it might be as low as 0.3c or as high as 0.9c) Then, it will level off and begin a decline as we extract carbon from the atmosphere.

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...se-gases-today
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_...-7.html#10-7-1

The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C.

In other words, we are looking at the yellow highlighted line of the following chart. Global warming is about to flatten out and not even gain another 1c.



Don't sit there and make ridiculous claims about the environment without understand what is going on.

[PosPosPos]

In other words, we are looking at the yellow highlighted line of the following chart. Global warming is about to flatten out and not even gain another 1c.



Don't sit there and make ridiculous claims about the environment without understand what is going on.

The question is whether it's ever going to go down.

Not whether it's going to rise, hence, it's not wrong to say that global warming is here to stay.

[kail]

I think the nominees are most likely going to be Trump and Hillary and from then on it is hard to say. I was rooting for Cruz, I think he still has a chance albeit a small one.

As for the debates, Clinton has an advantage on foreign policy questions unless Trump gets his shit together but I think he will do well on things like economic questions and I doubt they can fight much on it since Trump is a democrat when it comes to the economy.

However, I think that if a terrorist attack happens right before the election that Trump will win because Democrats are pathetically weak on the issue.

That's putting a lot of faith on Trump. His answers to anything are hardly answers.

Another ISIS attack? Just more "I told you so". As if it takes some crystal ball to predict that terrorists will make a terrorist attack.

[Mejis]

I think we all know the real winners will be the American people. Right?