2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Primary results: Hillary Clinton wins Kentucky, Bernie Sanders takes Oregon - CNNPolitics.com

Stephen Collinson, CNN

Hillary Clinton got the win she badly needed — just barely.

It took a last-minute campaign blitz and a significant financial investment for Clinton to win the Kentucky Democratic primary by half a percentage point over her stubborn primary foe Bernie Sanders — in a state she won by 35 percentage points over Barack Obama in their 2008 primary clash and where her family has deep political roots going back decades.
Sanders, after racing Clinton right up to the finish line in the Bluegrass State, easily won the Oregon primary, and declared at a raucous rally in California that despite pressure from the Clinton campaign to abandon his quest for the nomination, he would stay in the race "until the last ballot is cast." ...


Sanders took more delegates overall on the night but Clinton was close and closed her margin for the nomination to around 100 delegates. But Bernie's not going quietly into that good night.
 
Last edited:

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Trump won Oregon with 66.9% of the vote. His 210k total was more than twice Cruz and Kasich combined total.

CNN lists Trump 67 delegates short of the nomination.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Did you instruct any member of your staff to wipe your email servers? "Like with a cloth or something??"

Beyond the fact that Hillary has had plenty of stupid bold face lies before she stopped taking questions, I wasn't even defending Trump's actual answers. All I was commenting on was the fact that Hillary is a coward.

That joking statement (evasive, but a joke) was after several questions and a long detailed response about the tens of thousands of pages of work-related emails she had released and why she hadn't released some of her personal emails. The reporter asked a follow-up that was essentially the same question and she made light of it.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,582
Reaction score
20,033
John Edwards was brought down by a similar story.

Bill Clinton is not running for president. Hillary is the candidate. If you've got a bunch of men in Hillary's past, then bring them on. Since Trump sees fit to attack Hillary through Bill, then I guess all the women in Trump's life are fair game in the dirt slinging battle. You attack my spouse. I'll attack yours.

The issue here is not a bunch of men in Hillary Clinton's past, but the fact that Bill Clinton was abusing the oval office with his "I did not have sex with that woman" escapades and all the while, Hillary continued to use Bill as her spring board to further her political ambitions. Can you imagine the number of women voters she would pick up if she just came out and "really addressed" the issue? She would have already wrapped up the nomination.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
John Edwards was brought down by a similar story.

Bill Clinton is not running for president. Hillary is the candidate. If you've got a bunch of men in Hillary's past, then bring them on. Since Trump sees fit to attack Hillary through Bill, then I guess all the women in Trump's life are fair game in the dirt slinging battle. You attack my spouse. I'll attack yours.

I'm not sure you understand the relevance of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades, as they relate to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is courting the female vote by trying to draw a clear line between her and Trump, with Trump as an objectifier and user of women, and her as a champion of women's rights, women's equality, and respect for women. Trump is fairly saying, "Where was all of this concern for women when your husband was banging anything and everything that moved in front of him?" I think that's a valid tactic on his part. That has nothing to do with any of Trump's current or past spouses; none of them are claiming to be champions of respect for women. The attack is not on Bill Clinton; the attack is on Hillary, for at least tacitly approving and enabling him to treat (supposedly A LOT of) women in the exact manner that she is attacking Trump for.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
I'm not sure you understand the relevance of Bill Clinton's sexual escapades, as they relate to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is courting the female vote by trying to draw a clear line between her and Trump, with Trump as an objectifier and user of women, and her as a champion of women's rights, women's equality, and respect for women. Trump is fairly saying, "Where was all of this concern for women when your husband was banging anything and everything that moved in front of him?" I think that's a valid tactic on his part. That has nothing to do with any of Trump's current or past spouses; none of them are claiming to be champions of respect for women. The attack is not on Bill Clinton; the attack is on Hillary, for at least tacitly approving and enabling him to treat (supposedly A LOT of) women in the exact manner that she is attacking Trump for.

Which is a classic ploy of the victimizer.

Look at any rape case ever prosecuted. Ever. Especially the ones that don't return a conviction, when there is enough proof for one.

You see the same strategy; blame the victim. Rape is rape, and presidential politics are presidential politics, but the basics here are the same. And it is more proof of exactly why a majority of Americans will not (or should not) support a Trump.

Look at it. If a man cheats on his wife, who is the victimizer? And who is the victim? Unless the couple has the understanding that he will be a womanizer, from day one, the woman is a victim of her husband's infidelity. Is that a comparable level of victimization to rape? I will let someone silly argue the back and forth on that!

But the fact that an obvious victimizer (Trump) tries to pin any 'blame' on the wife of another victimizer, (Clinton) speaks to the level of sociopathy of the personality, as well as the incredible ignorance of the brain powering the mouth, in uttering such nonsense, and the greater ignorance and stupidity of anyone believing it.

Don't get me wrong, there is only one person I would rather see in the White House less than Hillary. If the Republican Party had anything but a caricature of all that is wrong with conservative dogma, and modern American greed and monetary idolatry, I would consider voting for that candidate.

But I feel my decision is clear. I have to vote against Trump.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
2IVUUWd.jpg
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
But the fact that an obvious victimizer (Trump) tries to pin any 'blame' on the wife of another victimizer, (Clinton) speaks to the level of sociopathy of the personality, as well as the incredible ignorance of the brain powering the mouth, in uttering such nonsense, and the greater ignorance and stupidity of anyone believing it.

Don't get me wrong, there is only one person I would rather see in the White House less than Hillary. If the Republican Party had anything but a caricature of all that is wrong with conservative dogma, and modern American greed and monetary idolatry, I would consider voting for that candidate.

But I feel my decision is clear. I have to vote against Trump.

Pointing out hypocrisy is not the same as blaming. And that's what Trump is doing. I'm not defending the guy's love life. He obviously took advantage of his fame and fortune, trying to bang as many hot chicks as he could. But he's not blaming Hillary for Bill's extramarital affairs........ he is simply saying that he doesn't believe she really cares about respect for women as much as she claims, based on her past behavior. And it's working........ his numbers with women are going up, while hers are going down. I'm not voting for the guy, so I'm certainly not trying to persuade anyone else to vote for him. But his attacks on Hillary's hypocrisy, by pointing out her behavior during her husband's affairs, is a fair tactic.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,622
Reaction score
2,722
I would love a reporter to ask Hillary the last time she shared a bed with Bill. If it was during this century I would be amazed.

Bogs- your analysis may work for a normal situation but not this "marriage" of convenience. Most people see through that sham and find it fairly disgusting. When half the country has been divorced over much less I think you lose some credibility - especially when she attacked the mistresses so vehemently.
 

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
I don't think it's surprising that Americans are ready to put a man who has been divorced twice or a couple that is the American symbol of infidelity into the oval office.

Most Americans don't care about family values anymore.
 

TheOneWhoKnocks

New member
Messages
691
Reaction score
46
Which is a classic ploy of the victimizer.

Look at any rape case ever prosecuted. Ever. Especially the ones that don't return a conviction, when there is enough proof for one.

You see the same strategy; blame the victim. Rape is rape, and presidential politics are presidential politics, but the basics here are the same. And it is more proof of exactly why a majority of Americans will not (or should not) support a Trump.

Look at it. If a man cheats on his wife, who is the victimizer? And who is the victim? Unless the couple has the understanding that he will be a womanizer, from day one, the woman is a victim of her husband's infidelity. Is that a comparable level of victimization to rape? I will let someone silly argue the back and forth on that!

But the fact that an obvious victimizer (Trump) tries to pin any 'blame' on the wife of another victimizer, (Clinton) speaks to the level of sociopathy of the personality, as well as the incredible ignorance of the brain powering the mouth, in uttering such nonsense, and the greater ignorance and stupidity of anyone believing it.

Don't get me wrong, there is only one person I would rather see in the White House less than Hillary. If the Republican Party had anything but a caricature of all that is wrong with conservative dogma, and modern American greed and monetary idolatry, I would consider voting for that candidate.

But I feel my decision is clear. I have to vote against Trump.

It wasn't Kmoose point, but as I said before its not about Bill cheating. Whats Trump gonna say about that lol besides Hillary enabled it by staying. Its about what Hillary has supposedly did to make the womens lives after the fact miserable. That's where Trump goes to when he speaks about it. Is any of it true, who knows. If a stories out there it will be used tho, by both sides-facts don't matter.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I don't think it's surprising that Americans are ready to put a man who has been divorced twice or a couple that is the American symbol of infidelity into the oval office.

Most Americans don't care about family values anymore.

These are the candidates we deserve.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,696
Reaction score
5,996
I would love a reporter to ask Hillary the last time she shared a bed with Bill. If it was during this century I would be amazed.

Bogs- your analysis may work for a normal situation but not this "marriage" of convenience. Most people see through that sham and find it fairly disgusting. When half the country has been divorced over much less I think you lose some credibility - especially when she attacked the mistresses so vehemently.

I haven't seen season 4 of House of Cards yet but the Clinton family makes me think of the Underwood's minus any sort of affection.
 

NDinL.A.

New member
Messages
8,121
Reaction score
1,734
Pointing out hypocrisy is not the same as blaming. And that's what Trump is doing. I'm not defending the guy's love life. He obviously took advantage of his fame and fortune, trying to bang as many hot chicks as he could. But he's not blaming Hillary for Bill's extramarital affairs........ he is simply saying that he doesn't believe she really cares about respect for women as much as she claims, based on her past behavior. And it's working........ his numbers with women are going up, while hers are going down. I'm not voting for the guy, so I'm certainly not trying to persuade anyone else to vote for him. But his attacks on Hillary's hypocrisy, by pointing out her behavior during her husband's affairs, is a fair tactic.

All true. But my counter to this is that it is more hypocritical BS from Trump. He knew of all this a LONG time ago, but he didn’t care. He never said a word about her character, quite the opposite in fact. When he wasn’t inviting them to his wedding, he was helping support their political runs financially. When he wasn’t doing that, he was praising her for her excellent work as Secretary of State and how she’d make a fine president. NOW all of a sudden he has a problem with her being an enabler.

It’s just more of the same political BS that people have grown tired of, and were hoping for something different when they got Trump. We haven’t. He’s just louder and more bombastic than others, but he’s still the same – says what he knows people will want to hear, no depth to anything he says nor a real plan of action, an insider (sorry, but anyone who is texting buddies with John Boehner and who surrounds himself with nothing but insiders is an insider himself) and someone who is out for only himself. Wash, rinse, repeat. Cruz (not a fan) nailed it when he said that Donald and Hilary are two sides of the same coin. Except Donald is a maniac capable of doing anything, repercussions be damned. I’m glad he is so happy to dish compliments to communist leaders but rips on our allied leaders. Ugh.

(Can we fast-forward to December? These candidates, Bernie including, make me want to vomit.)
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
I haven't seen season 4 of House of Cards yet but the Clinton family makes me think of the Underwood's minus any sort of affection.

You don't need to see Season 4 to make that comparison. It's actually been all over the internet since HoC began. The writers and even Kevin Spacey have came out against those rumors, but there too many similarities to ignore. If you don't look at it as a literal biography of their political daily lives and view it as "based on" scenario instead, you can see how the Clinton's are the Underwoods, the Underwoods are the Clintons. That's my opinion anyways.

Power, Money, Control, Corruption, Manipulation...which family am I talking about? Both.
 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,582
Reaction score
20,033
I would love a reporter to ask Hillary the last time she shared a bed with Bill. If it was during this century I would be amazed.

Bogs- your analysis may work for a normal situation but not this "marriage" of convenience. Most people see through that sham and find it fairly disgusting. When half the country has been divorced over much less I think you lose some credibility - especially when she attacked the mistresses so vehemently.

Had to be before January 1993, because Monica was using it then! lol
 
Last edited:

NDinL.A.

New member
Messages
8,121
Reaction score
1,734
It's such a crazy time.

Donald Trump 2016: On the Lonely Island of ‘Never Trump’ - POLITICO Magazine

Longtime Republican foreign policy operatives lining up to vote for Hillary. And it actually makes sense.

Thanks for this. These quotes stood out to me:

“I think that for those of us who think first and foremost about foreign policy, there’s no competition,” says Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operative in the Middle East who is now a fellow at the uber-hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “We know what Hillary Clinton more or less is, and that is easily better than what Donald Trump is.”

One finds many more Republican Hillary voters as soon as anonymity is granted. “I’m voting for Hillary,” one Republican foreign policy wonk told me the day after Trump’s Indiana win. “I think it’s a no-brainer.” For Republicans who vote primarily on foreign policy and who favor U.S. involvement in the world, Clinton is not just the lesser evil, but the best option. She is a traditional, bona fide internationalist and hawk, and, on foreign policy, she is to the right of both Obama and Trump.

“It’s not even a fucking close call,” said a senior GOP congressional staffer who works on foreign policy. “I’m struck by people who are like, ‘This is a dilemma!’ What’s the dilemma? I’m not here to tell you I love everything about Hillary Clinton, and that she’s going to be perfect, but from the point of view of someone who thinks about foreign policy and national security, it’s not even a close call.”

This article pretty much sums up my objection to Trump’s candidacy (well, one of many reasons I’m against it). Combine this article with Mark Cuban’s take down of Trump’s economic “policy” as well as Trump’s awful character, and you have why I am so #nevertrump, even as someone who has never voted for a Democratic presidential nominee.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Bernie Sanders can't afford to stay silent any longer | The Sacramento Bee

A lot of Democrats don’t want to admit it, but Donald Trump isn’t the only presidential candidate playing with fire and recklessly courting an angry mob.

For the latest round of curse-word hurling, chair throwing, social-media stalking and conspiracy-theory swapping, look no further than the supporters of Bernie Sanders.

Over the weekend, dozens of Sanders devotees lost their minds after the Nevada Democratic Party, meeting for its convention in Las Vegas, awarded a majority of delegates to front-runner Hillary Clinton.

Convinced that the establishment had rigged the rules and that Sanders delegates had been excluded for unfair reasons, they booed and traded barbs with people on stage, including Clinton surrogate and keynote speaker U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.

The convention ended abruptly, descending into chaos that was captured for the world to relive on Facebook and YouTube.

Death threats and vandalism followed, prompting Nevada Democratic Party offices to close on Monday and its chairwoman, Roberta Lange, to release some downright disgusting voicemails and text messages she had received from Sanders supporters. She also reported threats against her grandchildren.

The episode had the reek of Trump rallies, where threats, insults and sucker punches to defend the presumptive Republican nominee have been common. Yet looking back at the hundreds of Sanders supporters who descended on a Clinton rally in East Los Angeles earlier this month to intimidate her supporters, making one little girl cry, it now seems inevitable that the same kind of violent eruption would afflict those “feeling the Bern.”

That’s a scary prospect for a divided political party that is going to need to rediscover its united front in time for the November election. Like the Republicans whose unity was shredded by Trump’s rise, the Democrats now face the prospect of an internal revolt.
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
Thanks for this. These quotes stood out to me:



This article pretty much sums up my objection to Trump’s candidacy (well, one of many reasons I’m against it). Combine this article with Mark Cuban’s take down of Trump’s economic “policy” as well as Trump’s awful character, and you have why I am so #nevertrump, even as someone who has never voted for a Democratic presidential nominee.

Yeah, you can see why a lot of traditional Republicans are running from him.

The real problem for me with Trump is less his politics (although I disagree with those, too) but that he doesn't do his homework. He goes on these radio shows and talk shows and answers questions off the cuff without seeming to have really thought about what he's saying. Sure, I'll meet with Kim Jong Un. Oh, we could make a deal on our debt if the economy crashed. Etc.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
Not a huge fan of Daily News or King, but I found this article to be pretty much on point.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-stop-blaming-hillary-struggles-bernie-article-1.2640135


Just out of curiosity, since many of you on here plan to hold their nose and vote Trump or HRC, how many would rather hold their nose and vote Bernie? Not because you agree with him or because you think he's the best candidate who ran, but because perhaps he's better than the other two?

Bernie just tied HRC in a state (Kentucky) that had a closed primary and she won in a landslide back in '08. (Of course the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media aren't declaring it a tie. 27 delegates each at a 46% clip after >99% reporting sounds like a tie to me.) Anyways, he then went on to crush her in Oregon. Up ahead is Cali, where RCP average polling is around +9 in favor of HRC. Note, the polling in states with open primaries have been wrong in a lot of these states. Bernie over achieves polling and Hillary underachieves. It's conceivable that he can tie or win CA. Will he win the nomination outright? No. But the point I'm trying to make is this: Does Bernie have a legitimate shot at a third party run? The longer and longer this goes on, the more I believe he does.
 
Last edited:

gkIrish

Greek God
Messages
13,184
Reaction score
1,004
Not a huge fan of Daily News or King, but I found this article to be pretty much on point.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-stop-blaming-hillary-struggles-bernie-article-1.2640135


Just out of curiosity, since many of you on here plan to hold their nose and vote Trump or HRC, how many would rather hold their nose and vote Bernie? Not because you agree with him or because you think he's the best candidate who ran, but because perhaps he's better than the other two?

Bernie just tied HRC in a state (Kentucky) that had a closed primary and she won in a landslide back in '08. (Of course the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media aren't declaring it a tie. 27 delegates each at a 46% clip after >99% reporting sounds like a tie to me.) Anyways, he then went on to crush her in Oregon. Up ahead is Cali, where RCP average polling is around +9 in favor of HRC. Note, the polling in states with open primaries have been wrong in a lot of these states. Bernie over achieves polling and Hillary underachieves. It's conceivable that he can tie or win CA. Will he win the nomination outright? No. But the point I'm trying to make is this: Does Bernie have a legitimate shot at a third party run? The longer and longer this goes on, the more I believe he does.

A third party run would guarantee that no candidate gets enough electoral votes. However, the decision would then be in the hands of the House of Representatives (I think) and this would probably result in a Trump victory. So there is no point to him running 3rd party unless he just wants to screw over Hillary.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
A third party run would guarantee that no candidate gets enough electoral votes. However, the decision would then be in the hands of the House of Representatives (I think) and this would probably result in a Trump victory. So there is no point to him running 3rd party unless he just wants to screw over Hillary.

It would never even make it to the House. Trump would easily get enough electoral votes because Bernie and Clinton would be splitting the liberal/Dem vote, letting Trump win the states. Now if a true moderate candidate (with mass appeal) ran then it could lead to it going to the House of Representatives.
 

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,696
Reaction score
5,996
A third party run would guarantee that no candidate gets enough electoral votes. However, the decision would then be in the hands of the House of Representatives (I think) and this would probably result in a Trump victory. So there is no point to him running 3rd party unless he just wants to screw over Hillary.

I think that would guarantee Trump wins in a landslide.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
A third party run would guarantee that no candidate gets enough electoral votes. However, the decision would then be in the hands of the House of Representatives (I think) and this would probably result in a Trump victory. So there is no point to him running 3rd party unless he just wants to screw over Hillary.

I agree with you. But recently, it just seems like he may actually do it.

Think of the shit show American politics are right now that Republicans are openly stating they'll vote for Hillary Fucking Clinton over the GOP candidate. Democrats are so disgusted with Clinton that they're considering not voting at all or even voting for Trump. The #neverTrump and #neverHillary crowds could easily begin to see common ground with the #Bernieorbust crowd. Voter turnout could be ignited if there's a third option. When turnout is high, it's hard to say what will and will not happen.
 

BleedBlueGold

Well-known member
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
2,489
It would never even make it to the House. Trump would easily get enough electoral votes because Bernie and Clinton would be splitting the liberal/Dem vote, letting Trump win the states. Now if a true moderate candidate (with mass appeal) ran then it could lead to it going to the House of Representatives.

I think that would guarantee Trump wins in a landslide.

My brain says to agree with this logic, but my gut refuses. The majority of voters this cycle will be of the "hold your nose and vote" types. Trump and Hillary are two of the most hated candidates in history. Meanwhile Bernie is the only candidate with a positive favorability rating. I think there are more people out there who would be willing to hold their nose and vote Bernie, than either of the other two.
 
Top