2016 US Presidential Election - Trump vs Clinton? - Part 1

[Fire]

Calling Trump a fascist and comparing his advertising to Nazism
What if Trump does not win the nomination?
You cannot take it back to smear whoever wins the Republican nomination

None of the other candidates are giving off strong nationalistic or fascist signals.

I certainly am not speaking for the rest of the internet, but I don't compare someone to the Nazis lightly. There are parallels here though and I think it is justified.

You know exactly who George is

I honestly don't.

 

[The Speaker]

Calling Trump a fascist is stupid and wrong.

It is the sign of someone who does not know their history well enough, and cannot stand the idea of people liking nationalism.

For the Democrats, easily.

Everyone needs to take a chill pill over Iowa and New Hampshire. Primary races are won in the South and big states like New York, California etc - all states where Clinton is well organised and moneyed up. For all his strength at getting out good crowds during the summer, Sanders is less of an Obama (with a well organised ground game) and more of a Howard Dean.

Interesting fact I heard the other day - when Obama upset Clinton in Iowa in 2008, he did so by having enough foot soldiers out there to double the usual turnout in caucuses (from 120,000 to 240,000).

The other story I love about that campaign is that on the night of the Presidential election, they had enough phone bank volunteers who had already got out the vote and knew that they'd won, that they could call every resident in Alaska if they wanted. The campaign top brass was tempted (it being Palin's home state), but in the end sent everyone home to celebrate.

If you want a good book on all this, try The Victory Lab by Sasha Issenberg.

It is very rare that a candidate doesn't win either of Iowa and New Hampshire and goes on to win the nomination.

 

[Fire]

Calling Trump a fascist is stupid and wrong.

It is the sign of someone who does not know their history well enough, and cannot stand the idea of people liking nationalism.

If you insist.

 

[carnthemlions]

Trump does not run a successful multi billion dollar empire, his success is largely smoke and mirrors.

How many times have his businesses gone chapter 11 and left partners holding the bag and out of pocket.

He's a fraud, and a very good one at that. People who believe in Trump and whatever he stands for (Trump, mostly) are just too stupid to recognise it.
It's not an entirely conscious effort on Trump's part, I'm sure he really believes some of these things. But anyone who actually knows anything about him should be able to see that he's very good at self promotion and not much else. He'll say anything if he thinks there's something in it for him.

The GOP establishment still haven't worked out why Trump is dominating - people are sick of the GOP establishment.

Similarly with Sanders' rising popularity. People are fed up with bullsh*t rhetoric and the status quo that Clinton dishes up.

If it's Sanders v Trump it'll be the first time in decades that Americans have had a genuine "choice" about how they want their government to run.

I think Trump is effectively a symptom of the death of the republican party as we know it. He's not one of them, he's held various positions that would normally make him being able to make a serious run for the nomination impossible in normal circumstances. But here we are. Wannabe 'insurgent' tea party types have generated significant support over the years, and they've effectively broken the Republican Party with it. Now these people who were convinced they were onto something are left with a choice between Ted Cruz (hated by a lot of original tea party types) and Trump, who effectively stands for everything they claim to oppose. I'm not sure how much more division the party can survive.

Calling Trump a fascist is stupid and wrong.

It is the sign of someone who does not know their history well enough, and cannot stand the idea of people liking nationalism.



It is very rare that a candidate doesn't win either of Iowa and New Hampshire and goes on to win the nomination.

Is it just aggressive nationalism they like, or is it authoritarianism too? Strange comment by the way, you may want to clarify it.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533#ixzz3xcMePlWO

 

[swingdog]

It is very rare that a candidate doesn't win either of Iowa and New Hampshire and goes on to win the nomination.

Clinton, 80% chance of winning Iowa: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/
Clinton, 57% chance of winning New Hampshire: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-democratic/

Both numbers up in the past week.

 

[The Speaker]

Is it just aggressive nationalism they like, or is it authoritarianism too? Strange comment by the way, you may want to clarify it.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533#ixzz3xcMePlWO

Politico are the definition of establishment, I am unsurprised that they would create an article trying to equate Trump with the Nazis.

Do you think Trump is a fascist?

 

[pjcrows]

There's no doubt Sanders has a lot of support and if you'd have said 6 months ago he'd be polling 30% nationally you'd be kidding yourself. I understand that he is building and has a strong "ground game".

I think he may well win NH but not Iowa and will fizzle out - for this race I mean. He's planted the seeds for a progressive voice to build for 2020.

 

[carnthemlions]

Politico are the definition of establishment, I am unsurprised that they would create an article trying to equate Trump with the Nazis.

Do you think Trump is a fascist?

I think Trump is Trump (a big mouthed celebrity 'businessman' with a talent for self promotion). The question should be whether positions he holds in his current guise as a 'politician' are at all fascist. I think nativist bully, far right populist and so on are as close as you can get to classifying his positions. But is calling him a fascist stupid? Nope, go ahead. After all, he has advocated for the prevention of a group (including US citizens) from entering the country based on race and religion.
I agree that Politico is the definition of establishment, but I'm interested in how you came to the conclusion that the article was attempting to equate Trump with Nazism.

 

[The Speaker]

I think Trump is Trump (a big mouthed celebrity 'businessman' with a talent for self promotion). The question should be whether positions he holds in his current guise as a 'politician' are at all fascist. I think nativist bully, far right populist and so on are as close as you can get to classifying his positions. But is calling him a fascist stupid? Nope, go ahead. After all, he has advocated for the prevention of a group (including US citizens) from entering the country based on race and religion.
I agree that Politico is the definition of establishment, but I'm interested in how you came to the conclusion that the article was attempting to equate Trump with Nazism.

By the mere mention of Nazism early on in the article. It's a classic tactic to discredit opponents - vague references to something distasteful that are just far enough away to have plausible deniability.

I agree that Trump is a mealy-mouthed salesman, but too many labels are used simply because he's a lightning rod for the discontents of many ignored views of the population. Too many broad strokes used to define something complex, all ending in a dismissal of opposing views.

 

[medusala]

I mean that Sanders is polling better than Clinton against the likely republican nominations. Clinton still has a clear lead in the primaries as you mention, though Sanders has some pretty formidable momentum at the moment.

Clinton seems to be struggling badly just like she fell apart last time

And while Clinton certainly appeals to the 'mainstream', the success for both Trump and Sanders is telling.

Mainstream? Wall street, minorities and women. That's it. She has all the appeal of George Pell at a gay bar.

I certainly am not speaking for the rest of the internet, but I don't compare someone to the Nazis lightly. There are parallels here though and I think it is justified.

FFS. The central tenet of fascism is corporatism. What do you think the greatest example of that in the last 50 years has been? How did the rich get 95% of the income gains in Obama's first few years?

When you have slogans like making America great again, then anything is possible under this man

Change. Uber lol.

 

[TerryWallet]

I followed and argued the 08 and 12 elections intently on a couple political forums. Twas great entertainment. Haven't read through this thread, so apologies if what i say has already been roundly debated.

The people didn't want the Clinton Circus back in town back then, and i don't reckon they want it any more now.

The Sanders candidacy has a lot of similarities to the Obama one, but also it lacks some vital elements. The main element being Delegates. They are important in Primaries. Obama managed to outscore Clinton on the Party Delegate votes that sustain you through the primaries.

From what i gather this time, Hilary is absolutely dominant inside the Party. A mass advantage in delegates matters.

Anyway, i hope Bernie wins but i haven't really been following enough to know his actual chances.

If Obama endorses Hilary, which he prolly will, it's all over.

Bernie's candidacy could be a nice stalking horse for Elizabeth Warren next time, if he misses out himself.

Personally, the Clintons and their DLC bred colleagues can't **** off quick enough.

 

[Angles426]

Rand Paul all the way mates. Can see a huge upset in Iowa

Bernie will beat Clinton in the primaries and go up against Either The Donald, Cruz or Rand Paul

If anyone wants, I can give a detailed post refuting Sanders' policies.

 

[swingdog]

The Sanders candidacy has a lot of similarities to the Obama one, but also it lacks some vital elements. The main element being Delegates. They are important in Primaries. Obama managed to outscore Clinton on the Party Delegate votes that sustain you through the primaries.

Also lacks ground organisation and a candidate that aligns with some key voting demographics.

 

[swingdog]

Rand Paul all the way mates. Can see a huge upset in Iowa

Bernie will beat Clinton in the primaries and go up against Either The Donald, Cruz or Rand Paul

If anyone wants, I can give a detailed post refuting Sanders' policies.

I swear, nobody reads any analysis. Again:

Clinton, 80% chance of winning Iowa: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/
Clinton, 57% chance of winning New Hampshire: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-democratic/

 

[Angles426]

I swear, nobody reads any analysis. Again:

Clinton, 80% chance of winning Iowa: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-democratic/
Clinton, 57% chance of winning New Hampshire: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/new-hampshire-democratic/

I'm talking about Rand Paul upsetting in iowa, which is why I said it in the same sentence.

 

[TerryWallet]

Also lacks ground organisation and a candidate that aligns with some key voting demographics.

Ground organisation can be handled.

It all depends who Obama endorses. His database is the most powerful thing in US Politics since Nixon's southern strategy.

I think he'll plump for Hilary. Has he made any noises on it yet?

 

[Angles426]

Obama won't support Hillary, the Clinton's and Obama's have had bad blood since 08. He only gave Hillary the secretary of state job to salvage the relationship but she ****ed that up.

 

[TerryWallet]

Obama won't support Hillary, the Clinton's and Obama's have had bad blood since 08. He only gave Hillary the secretary of state job to salvage the relationship but she stuffed that up.

Yeah, i know their history.

 

[swingdog]

I'm talking about Rand Paul upsetting in iowa, which is why I said it in the same sentence.

I was explaining why Sanders won't beat Clinton.

Paul has a 4.7% chance of winning Iowa.

 

[swingdog]

Ground organisation can be handled.

It all depends who Obama endorses. His database is the most powerful thing in US Politics since Nixon's southern strategy.

I think he'll plump for Hilary. Has he made any noises on it yet?

He won't endorse anyone until there's a clear winner. He also won't be giving anyone his database.

Yes, ground organisation can be handled but to do it without money, you need to have started a year ago, which Sanders hasn't.

 

[Angles426]

I was explaining why Sanders won't beat Clinton.

Paul has a 4.7% chance of winning Iowa.

Sanders will beat Clinton because she wont be in the race, she'll be in Prison in 60 days.

Also, where's the stat that Rand is a 5% chance at winning Iowa?

 

[swingdog]

Sanders will beat Clinton because she wont be in the race, she'll be in Prison in 60 days.

Also, where's the stat that Rand is a 5% chance at winning Iowa?

538: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

 

[TerryWallet]

He won't endorse anyone until there's a clear winner. He also won't be giving anyone his database.

He def won't give it to Clinton.

But depending on if, and how badly he may want the Clinton's to lose, he may hep Bernie.

As i said, i doubt it though.

I think he would be more on board with Warren in a well planned 2020 or 2024 assault.

But as i say, i haven't been following closely lately. I just read the last few pages and thought i'd make the point about the importance of Democrat Delegates in the Democrat Primaries. It is not just winner take all popular vote like the Repugs.

It sounds like you would already know that, but others mightn't.

 

[The Speaker]

Nate Silver is not a god. He's a psephologist who got it right at the right time to go big, but he's not the only one going around.

 

[Angles426]

538: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/iowa-republican/

Poll number's don't make an outcome of chance.

You're forgetting Rand's loyal Libertarian base. Only Rand has a guaranteed loyal base to come out to vote (mostly from his father). Trump? Cruz? They don't have the loyal base that Rand does.

E:

This has been the most inclusive Iowa Straw Poll in history because it has included ALL Iowa voters, both Republicans and Democrats. After the GOP unilaterally canceled the traditional Iowa Straw Poll, America’s Term Limits Campaign decided to sponsor an on-line straw poll to give both parties an opportunity to register their votes.

Max Linn, President of America’s Term Limits Campaign and Iowa Straw Poll sponsor says the response has exceeded all expectations. “This poll is much more representative of Iowans since it’s been going on for months and uses a much broader voter base.” This is the first release of the results. Mr. Linn will be announcing a final update just prior to the February 1st primary.

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES
Trump – 34%
Paul – 18%
Rubio – 9%
Cruz – 8%
Carson – 8%
Christie – 4%
Bush – 3%
Fiorina – 2%
Kasich — 1 %
Huckabee – 1%

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES
Clinton – 40%
Sanders – 39%
O'Malley – 4%

http://www.youthforrandpaul.com/post/137353293308/rand-paul-gets-18-second-place-in-iowa-straw