2016 Presidential Horse Race

[RDU Irish]

Voting for Kasich in Ohio and Rubio in Florida is perfect because
1) Cruz won't win them anyways, and it's just going to boost Trump.
2) It stops Trump fro, reaching the much needed delegate number. So the crooked folks running the party can stop Trump.

Great points, again making it meaningful to show up and vote for the losers b/c it statistically drags down Trump and Cruz's relative numbers.

 

[gkIrish]

I am anti-Trump and anti-Cruz. I don't want either guy. So I voted for Kasich. My hope is for a brokered convention.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

This is where I disagree.

Rubio would have been the "most electable" candidate if he had won the delegates in the first place. Rubio (or any candidate) coming out of a brokered convention would not result in an electable candidate because the Trump supporters would bail.

In other words, I think a brokered convention means the Republicans lose no matter what candidate comes out of it, so I don't want a brokered convention.

I'm not going to argue that point because it's too subjective. I see what you're saying though and just respectfully disagree. I just think that in the end, as long as Trump doesn't decide to run 3rd party, a Kasich/Rubio ticket would bring out a lot of R voters...enough to make a run at HRC.

 

[drayer54]

Rubio or Kasich would smash Hillary in the general. Then they are fighting for votes among everyone, not just the far right, evangelicals, and illiterates for Trump.

 

[wizards8507]

Rubio or Kasich would smash Hillary in the general. Then they are fighting for votes among everyone, not just the far right, evangelicals, and illiterates for Trump.

Kasich would get slaughtered. The Republicans have tried it twice in a row and it was a miserable failure. "Squishy moderate" isn't an effective electoral strategy for two reasons.

1. The media hates Republicans and will portray even squishy moderates as right-wing extremists.

2. The base will stay home.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I'm curious if this election has made any of our left-leaning posters reassess their assumptions regarding the effectiveness of campaign finance reform. Two insurgent candidates are not only winning without Super PAC money, but in spite of millions of Super PAC dollars being spent to undermine them.

In Trump's case at least, it proves how much more valuable media power is than direct applications of money to politics.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Kasich would get slaughtered. The Republicans have tried it twice in a row and it was a miserable failure. "Squishy moderate" isn't an effective electoral strategy for two reasons.

1. The media hates Republicans and will portray even squishy moderates as right-wing extremists.

2. The base will stay home.

Lol. C'mon man. #1 is ridiculous. #2 is just not true based on polling (as stated earlier: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race)

 

[GowerND11]

Great post - maybe the party needs to crash and burn to clean out the crap? Cruz is a turd sandwich and Trump obviously a giant douche - acting like people have no point in voting unless they vote for them is absurd. Maybe Kasich is a protest vote to show people who care and will show up think they both suck even though the guy I pull the lever for probably gets squat out of my state. Maybe it shows support that can lead to his VP nod - which is paired with Trump I think would be making the most of a crappy situation.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm curious if this election has made any of our left-leaning posters reassess their assumptions regarding the effectiveness of campaign finance reform. Two insurgent candidates are not only winning without Super PAC money, but in spite of millions of Super PAC dollars being spent to undermine them.

In Trump's case at least, it proves how much more valuable media power is than direct applications of money to politics.

Shouldn't the bolded answer your own question? People are fed up with D.C. money and they're supporting the candidates who are against it and without it.

Bernie has received the least media airtime of any top remaining candidate (Trump, Cruz, HRC) and he still breaking records with donations and support (although it's yet to be realized in the actual vote count).

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Kasich wants to arm every one in Mideast. isn't that 1 of the main reasons place is a shit storm now? Then send troops to die.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Shouldn't the bolded answer your own question?

Not really, because the current state of this election undermines a lot of key assumptions in the argument for campaign finance reform. If candidates like Trump and Bernie can be competitive in spite of Super PAC money: (1) it strongly indicates that we don't need to shred the First Amendment to maintain democratic legitimacy; and (2) it shows that the nexus of power in modern America is much more subtle (and media-driven) than direct political donations.

People are fed up with D.C. money and they're supporting the candidates who are against it and without it.

That's only an argument for campaign finance reform if Trump and Bernie are popular but can't get a fair hearing. Not the case, obviously.

 

[RDU Irish]

My impression is that Dem turnout pretty much sucks - which opens the door for Bernie's grassroots approach. Republican turnout is supposedly off the charts and Trump has top fame factor and owns the airwaves. His air time is off the charts and he doesn't have to pay a dime for it. Media whores can hate on him all they want but they love the ratings he brings and will continue to give him free coverage.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Not really, because the current state of this election undermines a lot of key assumptions in the argument for campaign finance reform. If candidates like Trump and Bernie can be competitive in spite of Super PAC money: (1) it strongly indicates that we don't need to shred the First Amendment to maintain democratic legitimacy; and (2) it shows that the nexus of power in modern America is much more subtle (and media-driven) than direct political donations.



That's only an argument for campaign finance reform if Trump and Bernie are popular but can't get a fair hearing. Not the case, obviously.

I disagree. People have a say in who they vote into office. Said candidates are supposed to represent the people. In it's current state, it seems far more politicians represent their donors. Hence the need to remove money from politics. See Americans want gun law reform vs NRA lobbyists in DC. Clearly the opposite of democracy, and yet mostly based on money.

 

[wizards8507]

In Trump's case at least, it proves how much more valuable media power is than direct applications of money to politics.

Which is one of the most appalling things that I can't believe his "populist" supporters have latched onto. If we insist on candidates "self-funding" their campaigns, we'll ensure that no regular people will ever be elected to representative office ever again. I don't want a world in which only billionaires can fund a campaign.

Lol. C'mon man. #1 is ridiculous. #2 is just not true based on polling (as stated earlier: RealClearPolitics - 2016 Presidential Race)

If you don't think the media carries a liberal bias, there's no point in debating #1. To #2, that'll go absolutely out the window if Kasich were the nominee via a brokered convention. You can't take a poll TODAY and assume it will hold in a general election that came from the shady machinations of a brokered convention.

Shouldn't the bolded answer your own question? People are fed up with D.C. money and they're supporting the candidates who are against it and without it.

Bernie has received the least media airtime of any top remaining candidate (Trump, Cruz, HRC) and he still breaking records with donations and support (although it's yet to be realized in the actual vote count).

NY Times: Trump's "Mammoth Advantage In Free Media" Helps Him Win Primary After Primary | Blog | Media Matters for America

That's Media Matters, a far-left wing outlet. Bernie and Cruz are about tied, with Bernie having a slight advantage.

Clearly the opposite of democracy, and yet mostly based on money.

Well, we're not a democracy. Never have been. In fact, our founding fathers hated (or at least distrusted) democracy.

 

[Legacy]

Where will the money come from?

Where will the money come from?

Pentagon Chief Calls for Spending Increase to Address Multiple Threats

Especially if you cut taxes....
And the national debt rises with increased interest owed....

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I disagree. People have a say in who they vote into office. Said candidates are supposed to represent the people. In it's current state, it seems far more politicians represent their donors. Hence the need to remove money from politics. See Americans want gun law reform vs NRA lobbyists in DC. Clearly the opposite of democracy, and yet mostly based on money.

We seem to be arguing past each other here. SCOTUS has consistently held that political donations are core First Amendment speech, so campaign finance reform is difficult to square with our constitution. Proponents argue that our Federal government is so corrupted* by wealthy interest groups that it threatens the democratic legitimacy of our institutions, so regardless of its constitutionality, campaign finance reform must be passed.

But since the insurgent campaigns of Trump and Bernie are currently enjoying 'uge success, it indicates that Super PAC money (and other commonly-cited bogeymen) simply aren't as important as they're made out to be. Which significantly weakens the case for shredding the First Amendment in favor of campaign finance reform because Something Must Be Done™.

*Progressive irony

 

[BleedBlueGold]

We seem to be arguing past each other here. SCOTUS has consistently held that political donations are core First Amendment speech, so campaign finance reform is difficult to square with our constitution. Proponents argue that our Federal government is so corrupted* by wealthy interest groups that it threatens the democratic legitimacy of our institutions, so regardless of its constitutionality, campaign finance reform must be passed.

But since the insurgent campaigns of Trump and Bernie are currently enjoying 'uge success, it indicates that Super PAC money (and other commonly-cited bogeymen) simply aren't as important as they're made out to be. Which significantly weakens the case for shredding the First Amendment in favor of campaign finance reform because Something Must Be Done™.

*Progressive irony

I see your point based on elections for POTUS, but finance reform is just as much about contributions to seats on the House, etc. When I hear Bernie talk about reform, he's talking about legislators who take money from donors and vote accordingly, not just POTUS elections.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I see your point based on elections for POTUS, but finance reform is just as much about contributions to seats on the House, etc. When I hear Bernie talk about reform, he's talking about legislators who take money from donors and vote accordingly, not just POTUS elections.

That's fair. I don't think the Trump and Bernie campaigns refute the case for campaign finance reform across the board; but they do challenge several of its key assumptions.

You likely already know my position on this issue: that political corruption is a serious issue, but regulatory capture is unavoidable, and only becomes worse as the size and scope of the Federal government grows. So this election has been enjoyable both because the Establishment is floundering, and because it is undermining a popular case for weakening the First Amendment.

 

[Armyirish47]

We seem to be arguing past each other here. SCOTUS has consistently held that political donations are core First Amendment speech, so campaign finance reform is difficult to square with our constitution. Proponents argue that our Federal government is so corrupted* by wealthy interest groups that it threatens the democratic legitimacy of our institutions, so regardless of its constitutionality, campaign finance reform must be passed.

But since the insurgent campaigns of Trump and Bernie are currently enjoying 'uge success, it indicates that Super PAC money (and other commonly-cited bogeymen) simply aren't as important as they're made out to be. Which significantly weakens the case for shredding the First Amendment in favor of campaign finance reform because Something Must Be Done™.

*Progressive irony

Do you mean SCOTUS has been consistent recently?

 

[gkIrish]

Kasich would get slaughtered. The Republicans have tried it twice in a row and it was a miserable failure. "Squishy moderate" isn't an effective electoral strategy for two reasons.

1. The media hates Republicans and will portray even squishy moderates as right-wing extremists.

2. The base will stay home.

Why don't you just admit you want Cruz to be the nominee and stop with all the nonsense?

Kasich would demolish Hillary. Too many people hate her, he is guaranteed to win Ohio, and many men won't vote for a woman (no I don't have a source for that).

 

[tussin]

Why don't you just admit you want Cruz to be the nominee and stop with all the nonsense?

Kasich would demolish Hillary. Too many people hate her, he is guaranteed to win Ohio, and many men won't vote for a woman (no I don't have a source for that).

Wiz is too embarrassed to admit that he is a closet Cruz supporter. Can't say I blame him as I'd also be ashamed to vote for a guy who's own children seem to hate him.

Back to Kasich - agree that he would romp Hill. I actually think he's a stronger general election candidate than McCain and Romney. Seems "relatable" (important, IMO), hasn't been through the ringer during the primary cycle, and has great experience from a legislative and executive point of view. Contrast that to Hillary, who has the experience but is almost universally disliked.

I also don't buy the "moderate GOP candidates fail in general elections" argument. I know we all love to rag on Obama; but from an electability perspective, he was charismatic, polished, likable, and young. Basically a generational candidate that no GOP candidate (moderate or not) was going to beat.

 

[wizards8507]

Why don't you just admit you want Cruz to be the nominee and stop with all the nonsense?

Kasich would demolish Hillary. Too many people hate her, he is guaranteed to win Ohio, and many men won't vote for a woman (no I don't have a source for that).

Wiz is too embarrassed to admit that he is a closet Cruz supporter. Can't say I blame him as I'd also be ashamed to vote for a guy who's own children seem to hate him.

Back to Kasich - agree that he would romp Hill. I actually think he's a stronger general election candidate than McCain and Romney. Seems "relatable" (important, IMO), hasn't been through the ringer during the primary cycle, and has great experience from a legislative and executive point of view. Contrast that to Hillary, who has the experience but is almost universally disliked.

I'm not a "closet" Cruz supporter, I'm an open Cruz supporter (at this point in the race). I was a Rand Paul supporter and he got nowhere. I was a Rubio supporter and he laid an egg. I don't believe Cruz is the "best candidate," but I believe he's the "least bad" candidate with any shot at winning.

1. Worst case scenario: Trump presidency
2. Second worst case scenario: Hillary or Bernie presidency

I think a contested convention guarantees #2, so I'm supporting Cruz as the only candidate who could possibly prevent a contested convention besides Trump who I obviously don't support per #1.

I also don't buy the "moderate GOP candidates fail in general elections" argument. I know we all love to rag on Obama; but from an electability perspective, he was charismatic, polished, likable, and young. Basically a generational candidate that no GOP candidate (moderate or not) was going to beat.

I buy that argument in 2008. I don't buy in for 2012.

We have two modern data points of a true conservative nominee. Goldwater was slaughtered, Reagan won two landslides. Not enough data to proclaim a trend.

 

[RDU Irish]

I don't buy this fear mongering over brokered convention. I think it might be refreshing seeing multiple groups forced to find a consensus. Least hated is a good boat to be in if that comes to pass.

Kasich is very different from Romney and McCain - he has experience at state AND federal level of getting things done. McCain is a complete dinosaur hack. Romney is epitomizes every stereotype of rich Republicans. Kasich also delivers Ohio, Romney and McCain added no electorial college value like that.

Rubio can't even deliver Florida - wtf good is he?

 

[gkIrish]

This election is unlike any other because of how much Republicans hate Hillary. She will be destroyed if the candidate is not Trump or Cruz. That leaves Kasich.

 

[IrishLax]

At what point does someone just up and assassinate Trump? Like in any movie there is already someone plotting behind the scenes...

 

[wizards8507]

I don't buy this fear mongering over brokered convention. I think it might be refreshing seeing multiple groups forced to find a consensus. Least hated is a good boat to be in if that comes to pass.

Kasich is very different from Romney and McCain - he has experience at state AND federal level of getting things done. McCain is a complete dinosaur hack. Romney is epitomizes every stereotype of rich Republicans. Kasich also delivers Ohio, Romney and McCain added no electorial college value like that.

Rubio can't even deliver Florida - wtf good is he?

If there's any kind of prevailing sentiment out there it's anti-establishment. That's fueling the candidacies of Bernie, Trump, and Cruz. There's nothing that screams "establishment" more than party insiders picking a nominee against the will of the voters.

This election is unlike any other because of how much Republicans hate Hillary. She will be destroyed if the candidate is not Trump or Cruz. That leaves Kasich.

Think so? I hated Obama in 2012 way more than I hate Hillary.

 

[IrishLion]

At what point does someone just up and assassinate Trump? Like in any movie there is already someone plotting behind the scenes...

This was something I was worried about during the current POTUS' campaign, before he was elected. I was sure, that with the high number of crazy, unstable racists that still exist in the world, that someone would make an attempt at some point.

 

[EddytoNow]

This election is unlike any other because of how much Republicans hate Hillary. She will be destroyed if the candidate is not Trump or Cruz. That leaves Kasich.

IMHO the exact opposite is true. If Trump goes into a brokered convention with 35+% of the popular vote and and more elected delegates than the others and is then denied the nomination through behind the scenes maneuvering, a good percentage of his supporters will refuse to support the Republican nominee. Some will stay home on election day. Some will vote for the Democratic nominee. And some will vote for a third party candidate. Trump may even run as a third party candidate if he wins the most delegates and is then denied the nomination.

Since the past few presidential elections have been decided by a relatively small percentage, the Republicans need a large turnout. Denying Trump the nomination, that he rightfully won at the primary polls, will only help the Democrats win in November. A shift of one or two percent could decide the election.

The problem the Republicans face is an ability to compromise, even among themselves. The supporters of Bernie and Hillary will come together to support the eventual winner of the Democratic nomination. I can't say the same for the supporters of Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich. There is a far larger gap between tea party members and establishment Republicans than there is between moderate and progressive Democrats. Trump's supporters, especially, are angry at the establishment Republicans as much as they are angry at the establishment Democrats. If denied the fruits of their electoral support for Trump, it will be difficult to get them to support those who have denied their candidate the nomination. If Trump's ego is hurt by establishment Republican politicians, he will likely run as a third party candidate to destroy the Republican Party. He will not fade quietly into the background.

 

[wizards8507]

IMHO the exact opposite is true. If Trump goes into a brokered convention with 35+% of the popular vote and and more elected delegates than the others and is then denied the nomination through behind the scenes maneuvering, a good percentage of his supporters will refuse to support the Republican nominee. Some will stay home on election day. Some will vote for the Democratic nominee. And some will vote for a third party candidate. Trump may even run as a third party candidate if he wins the most delegates and is then denied the nomination.

Since the past few presidential elections have been decided by a relatively small percentage, the Republicans need a large turnout. Denying Trump the nomination, that he rightfully won at the primary polls, will only help the Democrats win in November. A shift of one or two percent could decide the election.

The problem the Republicans face is an ability to compromise, even among themselves. The supporters of Bernie and Hillary will come together to support the eventual winner of the Democratic nomination. I can't say the same for the supporters of Trump, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich. There is a far larger gap between tea party members and establishment Republicans than there is between moderate and progressive Democrats. Trump's supporters, especially, are angry at the establishment Republicans as much as they are angry at the establishment Democrats. If denied the fruits of their electoral support for Trump, it will be difficult to get them to support those who have denied their candidate the nomination. If Trump's ego is hurt by establishment Republican politicians, he will likely run as a third party candidate to destroy the Republican Party. He will not fade quietly into the background.

 

[GoIrish41]

At what point does someone just up and assassinate Trump? Like in any movie there is already someone plotting behind the scenes...

Jeb?