2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

They are sick to death of everyone running scared from issues and they have had it with political correctness. So they like Trump.

That's why I love him as a candidate. I hope to hell he doesn't win because I think he'd be a disaster, but I like the potential impact he can have on our discourse. Case in point: most candidates would have responded to the Megyn Kelly controversy by issuing a press release saying something like "I apologize if my comments were taken the wrong way. I have the utmost respect for Megyn Kelly as a woman and a journalist." Instead, Trump goes on every single Sunday show with a message of "are you fucking kidding me? You guys are so full of your own shit." That's a breath of fresh air.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Trump leads because, being a tool or not, he is telling everyone how it is. Flat out. PC out the window. Rich people donate to candidates and then extract favours later down the line? YOU DONT SAY.

On most things, Trump's view (I don't think he actually believes most of it, but it's how he's running) taps into how a certain percentage of the republican electorate thinks it is. He is not telling everyone how it actually is. The exception might be his discussion on campaign donations.

ETA: He hasn't really articulated a view on much of anything. He speaks in vague angry platitudes. There hasn't been an actual policy that has come out of his mouth.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

That's why I love him as a candidate. I hope to hell he doesn't win because I think he'd be a disaster, but I like the potential impact he can have on our discourse. Case in point: most candidates would have responded to the Megyn Kelly controversy by issuing a press release saying something like "I apologize if my comments were taken the wrong way. I have the utmost respect for Megyn Kelly as a woman and a journalist." Instead, Trump goes on every single Sunday show with a message of "are you fucking kidding me? You guys are so full of your own shit." That's a breath of fresh air.

Except he responded to questions about misogyny by being misogynistic. His comments were offensive. He's not taking a virtuous stand...he's taking a stubborn and idiotic stand.

 

[phork]

On most things, Trump's view (I don't think he actually believes most of it, but it's how he's running) taps into how a certain percentage of the republican electorate thinks it is. He is not telling everyone how it actually is. The exception might be his discussion on campaign donations.

ETA: He hasn't really articulated a view on much of anything. He speaks in vague angry platitudes. There hasn't been an actual policy that has come out of his mouth.

I get what you are saying, but there he is. In first place. Not sure what it says about the party...

 

[ACamp1900]

Except he responded to questions about misogyny by being misogynistic. His comments were offensive.

Not my opinion so don't get all up in arms about it, but I believe, judging from what his supporters at work have told me, this type of response to just about anything is exactly what they are tired of, and why they are supporting Trump currently.

 

[GoIrish41]

Anyone can stand up and point out how f-ed up everything is. The question is, what Trump is going to do about it. He's offered nothing but "build a big freakin wall to keep out the rapists and murders." If people want to just hear someone bitch about what is wrong, they could get an account to IE and join the conversation in this thread.

 

[wizards8507]

Except he responded to questions about misogyny by being misogynistic. His comments were offensive. He's not taking a virtuous stand...he's taking a stubborn and idiotic stand.

I don't think you know what misogyny means.

 

[GATTACA!]

Anyone can stand up and point out how f-ed up everything is. The question is, what Trump is going to do about it. He's offered nothing but "build a big freakin wall to keep out the rapists and murders." If people want to just hear someone bitch about what is wrong, they could get an account to IE and join the conversation in this thread.

To his defense there has been one debate so far, where he had a total of maybe 8 minutes to talk. That was more of an opportunity to introduce yourself rather than talk specific policy. He also hasn't had years like these other politicians to build a background of what his platform will be.

I think it's foolish to dismiss him at this point for not having talked specifics, when very few have.

 

[GoIrish41]

To his defense there has been one debate so far, where he had a total of maybe 8 minutes to talk. That was more of an opportunity to introduce yourself rather than talk specific policy. He also hasn't had years like these other politicians to build a background of what his platform will be.

I think it's foolish to dismiss him at this point for not having talked specifics, when very few have.

I'm not dismissing him ... hell, I want him to win the nomination ... that just makes an easier path for Democrats to the White House. But to your point, he doesn't need to introduce himself to anyone. Everyone in the country knows him -- he's the obnoxious guy who fires celebrities on television and builds gaudy monuments to opulence and plasters his name on them in 20-foot letters . If you are going to run for president, you should have given a little thought to what the issues are that are important to you. He is just saying whatever comes to him in every moment, and then doubling down on whatever stupid comment that comes out of his mouth when the follow up questions come. This can only lead from crazy to crazier. But, I'm far less concerned about Donald Trump than I am about the people who support him. It is scary how many people are in that idiot's corner.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't think you know what misogyny means.

I think he has it right. What do you think it means?

mi·sog·y·ny

noun: misogyny

dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I don't think you know what misogyny means.

Calling a woman who needs to pump milk for her baby "disgusting" is misogynistic. He didn't say that it was bad timing or that the trial shouldn't have to wait for her. He said she was disgusting.

He re-tweeted a comment from a supporter that called Megyn Kelly a bimbo.

I know what misogyny means.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I get what you are saying, but there he is. In first place. Not sure what it says about the party...

It says that a portion of the party is angry, particularly at Mexicans, and his candidacy is cathartic. But he hasn't made any real policy suggestions. I'll build a fence and Mexico will pay for it? That's not a policy. But it's easy to emotionally back it. And the Megyn Kelly stuff is an extension of the "no apologies" thing that the party has been hanging onto for a decade. Heck, it was Mitt Romney's book. We're America...we never apologize...even if we just called a woman a bimbo for asking a hard question.

 

[phgreek]

I'm not dismissing him ... hell, I want him to win the nomination ... that just makes an easier path for Democrats to the White House. But to your point, he doesn't need to introduce himself to anyone. Everyone in the country knows him -- he's the obnoxious guy who fires celebrities on television and builds gaudy monuments to opulence and plasters his name on them in 20-foot letters . If you are going to run for president, you should have given a little thought to what the issues are that are important to you. He is just saying whatever comes to him in every moment, and then doubling down on whatever stupid comment that comes out of his mouth when the follow up questions come. This can only lead from crazy to crazier. But, I'm far less concerned about Donald Trump than I am about the people who support him. It is scary how many people are in that idiot's corner.

So any Democrat will do...Even Hillary Clinton?

You'd take Hillary Clinton over any Republican...

 

[GoIrish41]

So any Democrat will do...Even Hillary Clinton?

You'd take Hillary Clinton over any Republican...

I've said in previous posts that I'm willing to take a closer look at Kasich and even Rand Paul -- but those guys don't look to have much of a chance to make a splash in the GOP pool. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't vote for any other candidate in the GOP field over Hillary -- especially Trump. That slate of candidates is really unappealing to me overall, and there are a couple of lunatics among them. In the Democratic primary, Hillary is running at the back of the pack for me, right now. In order: Sanders, Biden (if he throws his hat in), Webb, OMalley and Hillary. We'll see what happens as the race progresses. All those other guys are already pushing her to the left, where she becomes a more appealing candidate to me. I haven't read her Education plan yet. I like her energy plan. I've got time to figure out who I like best in the Dems if Sanders doesn't look like he can pull off the Miracle of 16. I think any of the folks running from the left would beat Trump handily. I remain astonished that he leads the GOP pack and I think it is a sad indictment on the party.

 

[Cackalacky]

Elitest = clueless human who advocates for things w/o an operable understanding of the rational limits or unintended consequences or even the efficacy of the "benefit"...but knows it "feels good", and likely won't impact them.

Often evidenced by people who aren't particularly active in normal service arenas...ie participation in PTA, volunteering in the soup kitchen, coaching Little league, leading scouting, manning the grill at the church social. Often evidenced by people who insulate themselves with like minded people in endeavors to "Define" things w/o alot of discussion like HOAs, academia, politics. It is evidenced at times by that quality of people who can totally benefit from an enormous carbon footprint, but decry my SUV. It is evidenced at times by someone who buys property next to a farm, builds a home, and then covertly tries to build a coalition of neighbors to run the farmer off. It is a clueless hypocrisy, that when present, has the impact on normal people of turning Mr. Hand into Mr. Fist....so they rarely mix with normal people. If none of this makes sense...uhm, your HOA duties are lagging.

In my life Elitests are like Elk...you can presume alot about where you might find them...but alas, in real time they simply are where they are, and they are VERY uncomfortable if you happen to infiltrate them...in fact they post sentinels to prevent it and spend an enormous amount of time searching out places of refuge. You know them when you see them quite quickly...well, and I usually smell them (elk...yea elk) before I ever see them.

Now...rather that applies here...kinda...you don't have to be an Elitest to appeal to one (Pander) with your policies.

Ok....? I still don't see how Bernie Sanders can be called an elitist even by that circuitous definition. He has had pretty much the same platform for nigh 40 years. He marched with MLK. He isn't pandering either. People are getting on his train. I honestly can't tell what you are saying here at all and how it pertains to Bernie Sanders.


Edited. Sorry phgreek, this post sounds shittier than I meant it.

 

[phgreek]

I've said in previous posts that I'm willing to take a closer look at Kasich and even Rand Paul -- but those guys don't look to have much of a chance to make a splash in the GOP pool. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't vote for any other candidate in the GOP field over Hillary -- especially Trump. That slate of candidates is really unappealing to me overall, and there are a couple of lunatics among them. In the Democratic primary, Hillary is running at the back of the pack for me, right now. In order: Sanders, Biden (if he throws his hat in), Webb, OMalley and Hillary. We'll see what happens as the race progresses. All those other guys are already pushing her to the left, where she becomes a more appealing candidate to me. I haven't read her Education plan yet. I like her energy plan. I've got time to figure out who I like best in the Dems if Sanders doesn't look like he can pull off the Miracle of 16. I think any of the folks running from the left would beat Trump handily. I remain astonished that he leads the GOP pack and I think it is a sad indictment on the party.

I often wandered what it would be like to read policy from someone who knew they were filthy dirty...wandered that since Watergate. Guess I'll read her stuff...then I'll know

Tell ya what...lets judge parties on their ultimate wisdom...their nominees. Worst case Clown for Republicans is Trump. Worst case clown for Democrats is Hillary.

I can certainly understand people who are generally liberal not liking alot of Republican ideas, and Conservatives not liking Democrat ideas....pretty easy to see. But at what point do you ask yourself about the character of the person? What are they in it for? Does the Agenda/platform even matter to them? Or do you question anything beyond Republican bad, Democrat good when it really gets down to it?

 

[phgreek]

Ok....? I still don't see how Bernie Sanders can be called an elitist even by that circuitous definition. He has had pretty much the same platform for nigh 40 years. He marched with MLK. He isn't pandering either. People are getting on his train. I honestly can't tell what you are saying here at all and how it pertains to Bernie Sanders.

- Some of it was tongue in cheek, obviously. But you honestly don't know what an Elitest is, and can't fathom that as another "identity" in the political discourse...or are only the ones coming from the left OK?

- posting foul..."nigh"...seriously?...you aren't that old grandpa...

- Pandering may not have been the right thing to say re: Sanders..but his policies appeal
to Elitests...and I wouldn't call him one. That was my point. He can be "genuine", and
attract (not pander to) people I described/defined as elitests. I do think ALL
politicians pander some...

my motivation to even engage on this subject...the Sarah Palin reference at someone seemed to be intended to belittle...seems like sometimes this shit gets way too personal making way for people who thrive on shit getting ugly and personal. My take...FWIW...Attack away on candidates, parties, and argue...jacking someone up by comparing their thoughts to someone you think is dumb...meh, not great for the atmosphere, even in here....JMHO. I expect to, and have been called on it, and rightfully so...

 

[GoIrish41]

I often wandered what it would be like to read policy from someone who knew they were filthy dirty...wandered that since Watergate. Guess I'll read her stuff...then I'll know

Tell ya what...lets judge parties on their ultimate wisdom...their nominees. Worst case Clown for Republicans is Trump. Worst case clown for Democrats is Hillary.

I can certainly understand people who are generally liberal not liking alot of Republican ideas, and Conservatives not liking Democrat ideas....pretty easy to see. But at what point do you ask yourself about the character of the person? What are they in it for? Does the Agenda/platform even matter to them? Or do you question anything beyond Republican bad, Democrat good when it really gets down to it?

Not sure, but it seems like you are saying the same thing as me, but somehow when I say it is is bad. I've said that there are candidates on the GOP side that I'm going to look more closely at. I'm just not ready to give up on my preferred candidate and throw my hat in the ring for them.

You can question Hillary's character if you want. Heck, I certainly do. I also question the character of Christie (the Bully of Bridgegate and an obnoxious bully to anyone who disagrees with him), Walker (attacks on the unions and an ideologue with a really questionable record of successes in Wisc.), Rubio (clumsily playing politics with immigration from both sides), Cruz (lets throw a government-wide temper tandum when the Dems don't want to toss out legislation they have been working toward for decades). Huckabee seems like a one-issue candidate (everything can be summed up in the context of getting back to Christian values), and Carson, although clearly an accomplished brain surgeon, does not seem to have learned much about the world behond that work except superficial talking points and terrible analogies (prisons create gay people, among other really, really bizzare things he's said). I'm sure I'm missing some (so many candidates!).

Lets say that the eventual candidates left standing after the primaries both have what I would consider to be character issues, and those candidates are Hillary and (fill in the blank). I'm probably going to go with the candidate who at least has publically supported the side of the issues that I like, because there is no chance in hell that the other guy is going to push for anything that I want, even if he/she has marginally better character.

 

[Cackalacky]

- Some of it was tongue in cheek, obviously. But you honestly don't know what an Elitest is, and can't fathom that as another "identity" in the political discourse...or are only the ones coming from the left OK?

- posting foul..."nigh"...seriously?...you aren't that old grandpa...

- Pandering may not have been the right thing to say re: Sanders..but his policies appeal
to Elitests...and I wouldn't call him one. That was my point. He can be "genuine", and
attract (not pander to) people I described/defined as elitests. I do think ALL
politicians pander some...

my motivation to even engage on this subject...the Sarah Palin reference at someone seemed to be intended to belittle...seems like sometimes this shit gets way too personal making way for people who thrive on shit getting ugly and personal. My take...FWIW...Attack away on candidates, parties, and argue...jacking someone up by comparing their thoughts to someone you think is dumb...meh, not great for the atmosphere, even in here....JMHO. I expect to, and have been called on it, and rightfully so...

I am sorry. I really don't get the conservatives use of elitist. For me it means this:

(of a person or class of persons) considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society:
elitist country clubbers who have theirs and don't care about anybody else.
2.
catering to or associated with an elitist class, its ideologies, or its institutions:
Even at such a small, private college, Latin and Greek are under attack as too elitist.
noun
3.
a person having, thought to have, or professing superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society:
He lost a congressional race in Texas by being smeared as an Eastern elitist.
4.
a person who believes in the superiority of an elitist class.

Which if you think that the majority of Liberals think they are in an elite class.... (possibly intellectually maybe)...IDK brother. Most liberals are trying to make better lives for themselves and can't really be regarded as elite.

Its also belittling. Its a dirty conservative code word, one I do not think applies to Bernie at all. My reference to Palin was more for the fact that whenever I hear "elitist" used to belittle liberals, my mind goes automatically to her babbling buffonery interview after interview in which she used it often and with much disgust...it wasn't a shot at yankeehater.

Apologies yankeehater if you thought that.

 

[ACamp1900]

Honestly question, honest answer??... I see all of the above on the left. Very much so.


EDIT: At least among the leadership of the party, Im not about to paint average democrat voters that way.... I'll put it this way... if you don't see all of the above in Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Clinton... God help you.

 

[pkt77242]

Honestly question, honest answer??... I see all of the above on the left. Very much so.

Do you see it on the right?

Because this part

in society:
elitist country clubbers who have theirs and don't care about anybody else.

Screams conservative to me.

 

[Grahambo]

Not sure, but it seems like you are saying the same thing as me, but somehow when I say it is is bad. I've said that there are candidates on the GOP side that I'm going to look more closely at. I'm just not ready to give up on my preferred candidate and throw my hat in the ring for them.

You can question Hillary's character if you want. Heck, I certainly do. I also question the character of Christie (the Bully of Bridgegate and an obnoxious bully to anyone who disagrees with him), Walker (attacks on the union and a ideologue with a really questionable record of successes in Wisc.), Rubio (clumsily playing politics with immigration from both sides), Cruz (lets throw a government-wide temper tandum when the Dems don't want to toss out legislation they have been working toward for decades). Huckabee seems like a one-issue candidate (everything can be summed up in the context of getting back to Christian values), and Carson, although clearly an accomplished brain surgeon, does not seem to have learned much about the world behond that work except superficial talking points and terrible analogies (prisons create gay people, among other really, really bizzare things he's said). I'm sure I'm missing some (so many candidates!).

Lets say that the eventual candidates left standing after the primaries both have what I would consider to be character issues, and those candidates are Hillary and (fill in the blank). I'm probably going to go with the candidate who at least has publically supported the side of the issues that I like, because there is no chance in hell that the other guy is going to push for anything that I want, even if he/she has marginally better character.

She has the worst character of them all. Behind closed doors...just awful and disrespectful beyond anything. Smacking people upside the head. Cursing at them. Calling them names. Complete disrespect.

Oh, not to mention Benghazi. And the Benghazi that I know, not the one that the media has portrayed.

 

[ACamp1900]

Do you see it on the right?

Because this part



Screams conservative to me.

I think that fits what the left wants people to see... I'll say that much.

 

[GoIrish41]

She has the worst character of them all. Behind closed doors...just awful and disrespectful beyond anything. Smacking people upside the head. Cursing at them. Calling them names. Complete disrespect.

Oh, not to mention Benghazi. And the Benghazi that I know, not the one that the media has portrayed.

I didn't realize that any of our posters have been behind closed doors with Hillary.

Outside of smacking people, Trump and Christie do all that publically. In Hillary's defense, at least she has the good sense not to do any of that in public, even if what you suggest is true (which I'm not really convinced is the case).

Are you really still talking about Benghazi? lol

 

[Cackalacky]

Honestly question, honest answer??... I see all of the above on the left. Very much so.


EDIT: At least among the leadership of the party, Im not about to paint average democrat voters that way.... I'll put it this way... if you don't see all of the above in Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Clinton... God help you.

I guess virtually anyone in politics, especially inside the Beltway, could fall into that category.

Again we are not talking specific people, elitist is a dirty code word for liberal when it can be really applied to anyone not named Bernie Sanders....lol

 

[IrishJayhawk]

She has the worst character of them all. Behind closed doors...just awful and disrespectful beyond anything. Smacking people upside the head. Cursing at them. Calling them names. Complete disrespect.

Oh, not to mention Benghazi. And the Benghazi that I know, not the one that the media has portrayed.

This Benghazi?

Republican-led report debunks Benghazi accusations - CNNPolitics.com

 

[ACamp1900]

I guess virtually anyone in politics, especially inside the Beltway, could fall into that category.

Again we are not talking specific people, elitist is a dirty code word for liberal when it can be really applied to anyone not named Bernie Sanders....lol

You mean Bernie "The Elitist" Sanders???

 

[pkt77242]

I think that fits what the left wants people to see... I'll say that much.

So Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and Clinton are elitist, but Boehner, Bush, Trump, Cruz, etc. aren't (and that is not even going into the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, etc.). Color me confused.

 

[ACamp1900]

I take Bernie as genuine (by DC standards) I really do, and I would feel better with him than you know who. My thing is spending, especially social spending, and it's where I am most Conservative (by normal definitions, not DC current definitions.) I mean a radical cut in spending is not a refusal to up spending or locking spending at a certain level for a few years but I digress,... Bernie has some great sounding ideas, but all I really hear is 'mo money, mo money, mo money, mo money, mo... mo... mo..." just me. When he is your polar opposite on your foremost issue it's hard to get over it.

 

[ACamp1900]

So Pelosi, Obama, Reid, and Clinton are elitist, but Boehner, Bush, Trump, Cruz, etc. aren't (and that is not even going into the Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson, etc.). Color me confused.

They are to varying degrees for sure, each fits at least one of the definitions laid out in Cack's post, some fit all.