Jump to content

The official South Carolina/Nevada primary thread...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 430
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Worzone said:

Trump will likely be our next president barring a surprise on Super Tuesday. Hilary is hated by so many I don't believe she will turn out the vote with enough excitement to beat him. Trump is not my choice but If its him or Hilary I'm going to vote for him because I really don't want Hilary and her 10 billion scandals. there is just too much controversy around her. 

I'm not saying it's set in stone, however, Trump has too many problems to be viable. He has his ~35% support within the GOP but he is failing miserably to win over voters who are making up their minds going into the primaries and caucuses, it will be way too easy to drive a wedge between him and moderates due to his extreme positions on issues (eg. deporting 11 million people, wanting to get into trade wars with everyone), he does the Democrats jobs for them to rally the minority vote, his bully tactics don't work on people with thick skin (eg. Cruz) and he has a habit of throwing tantrums when they fight back, he lacks substance on most issues which is becoming more clear as the GOP field has thinned out, his ground campaign does not appear to be very good, etc.

Hillary has her demons but she knows what she is doing and we know full well her campaign can be ruthless when she wants/needs to be, which currently isn't happening against Sanders. Once she's in the general against Trump she'll slit the political amateur's throat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Worzone said:

Trump will likely be our next president barring a surprise on Super Tuesday. Hilary is hated by so many I don't believe she will turn out the vote with enough excitement to beat him. Trump is not my choice but If its him or Hilary I'm going to vote for him because I really don't want Hilary and her 10 billion scandals. there is just too much controversy around her. 

The problem is that Trump is hated way more than Hillary is. Dems like Hillary and the vast majority of them will vote for her. The Bern or Bust group is actually very small. The number of republicans that would not support Trump is over 30%. His favorability among Independents and Democrats is much much worse. Also Trump is now the new Hispanic voter boogeyman. Hispanic groups are actually converting people to citizens just to vote against the guy. http://www.buzzfeed.com/adriancarrasquillo/trumps-effect-on-the-latino-vote-has-begun-more-hispanic-us#.xy06gMQBB

Also Hillary's enthusiasm numbers are very similar to Bernie's. 

hDemsEnthuse_Nom.jpg

 

Dems and Dem leaners like and will support Hillary. Her coalition is probably going to have more hispanic and women voters and less black and younger voters than Obama's coalition, but it is still a winning coalition. I also do not think you are going to see a turnout problem for dems. Even those that are dissatisfied are probably going to vote because of SCOTUS nominations. Most liberals I see are salivating at stacking the supreme court with liberal justices for 15-20 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Worzone said:

Why isn't  bloomberg already in the game if he's going to run? 

He'll run if it's Sanders v. Trump or Cruz since he'd be filling the void in the middle/be the practical adult in the room. Since the Sanders surge is petering out Hillary will most likely get the nomination which would mean they'd be targeting the same voters so neither would have a chance to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

The problem is that people have a favorable view of Carson, but they prefer some other candidate over him. Trump is polarizing(has the highest number of people unwilling to support him if he is the nom), but he is able to convert a high number of people who view him favorable to supporters. Also Carson is viewed very weak when it comes to National Security, which is now a major issue to the republican base. I think this is also what hurt Rand, since he is very dovish and not in favor of trading our liberties for safety. 

Personally I think we may be screwed man.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

I'm not saying it's set in stone, however, Trump has too many problems to be viable. He has his ~35% support within the GOP but he is failing miserably to win over voters who are making up their minds going into the primaries and caucuses, it will be way too easy to drive a wedge between him and moderates due to his extreme positions on issues (eg. deporting 11 million people, wanting to get into trade wars with everyone), he does the Democrats jobs for them to rally the minority vote, his bully tactics don't work on people with thick skin (eg. Cruz) and he has a habit of throwing tantrums when they fight back, he lacks substance on most issues which is becoming more clear as the GOP field has thinned out, his ground campaign does not appear to be very good, etc.

Hillary has her demons but she knows what she is doing and we know full well her campaign can be ruthless when she wants/needs to be, which currently isn't happening against Sanders. Once she's in the general against Trump she'll slit the political amateur's throat.

Not so sure anymore.  I did believe that but I think Trump will obviously tone down on a lot of the crazy/extreme talk we've been hearing during primary season and I think a lot of those independent voters will look past the last 6-8 months.  It's an absolutely terrifying notion to me that Trump could win the WH but I'm starting to think it's more of a possibility.  Not necessarily likely (if Hillary wins), but possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, slamee101 said:

Not so sure anymore.  I did believe that but I think Trump will obviously tone down on a lot of the crazy/extreme talk we've been hearing during primary season and I think a lot of those independent voters will look past the last 6-8 months.  It's an absolutely terrifying notion to me that Trump could win the WH but I'm starting to think it's more of a possibility.  Not necessarily likely (if Hillary wins), but possible.

They may look past it if he changes his tone but you know full well Democrats won't let it die. They can also due subtle attacks like having Hillary say she's glad she and Trump agree on [insert contentious opinion on issue that conservatives don't like] so it won't have to be a campaign issue as to undermine his conservative base, which I'd like to point out does not equate to his personal fanbase since they're their own kind of weird.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Has any candidate outlined even a half-way concrete plan to re-establish American manufacturing? 

The closest things I've heard is that Trump wants to get into trade wars with China and Mexico while Hillary wants to invest heavily in green industry initiatives so we can dominate it, which I assume Sanders also wants since he wants a 100% non-fossil fuel grid (sans nuclear).

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

The closest things I've heard is that Trump wants to get into trade wars with China and Mexico while Hillary wants to invest heavily in green industry initiatives so we can dominate it, which I assume Sanders also wants since he wants a 100% non-fossil fuel grid (sans nuclear).

She needs to fix her site. The issues page is nice because it makes everything condensed, but they never link to thebriefing articles that have the policy details. Supposedly there are more specific proposals to come, but I doubt we will see them before April with the primary heating up. 

 

Quote

Today, Clinton is outlining the pillars of her plan to strengthen American manufacturing and make the U.S. the location for the next generation of good-paying jobs.  

In the months ahead, she will outline more specific proposals under each of these pillars:

Revitalize the hardest-hit manufacturing communitiesby preventing downward cycles of lost employment, knowledge, and physical capital, and encouraging virtuous cycles of new employment and production.

  • Revitalize hard-hit manufacturing communities by building on her proposal to provide tax relief to encourage investment in hard-hit areas that have seen jobs and production depart. Specifically, Clinton’s plan would make areas that have seen or are about to face significant manufacturing job or plant losses eligible to apply for new investment tax incentives – called the “Manufacturing Renaissance Tax Credit” – modeled on the New Markets Tax Credit to attract new capital, business, and jobs; a zero capital gains option on long-term investments; and relief for renovating, refurbishing, or repurposing plants.
  • Link this tax relief to a coordinated, comprehensive, government-wide effort to prevent “downward spirals” resulting from departing production in hard-hit communities, and align resources from across agencies to make funds and programs easier to access

Create incentives for companies to bring back jobs to the U.S.by making America the most attractive location for investment – and crack down on shifting earnings overseas. 

  • Provide greater federal support and tax relief for research and innovation in America, particularly at smaller businesses and startups that cannot access the traditional R&E credit.
  • Coordinate government efforts within the U.S. and overseas to recruit and ease the path for companies to bring back jobs to the U.S.
  • End inversions and other tax loopholes that reward companies for shifting earnings overseas – and reward companies that invest here, in the U.S.
  • Double support for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a public-private partnership that helps smaller American manufacturers compete.
  • Expand access to capital, especially for smaller manufacturers.

Level the global playing field for American workers, businesses, and manufacturers and aggressively combat trade violations. Clinton has a strong history of defending the interests of American workers. Even as American workers are more productive and American businesses more innovative than ever before, we also have to see to it that our competitors in global trade cannot rig the game to their own advantage. Over the course of this campaign, Clinton will put out additional proposals on international economics under this pillar of leveling the playing field:

  • Make trade enforcement and leveling the playing field for American workers and businesses a critical presidential priority.
  • Crack down on currency manipulation and work with labor and business to take tough actions against unfair trade practices and the theft – physical and virtual – of America’s inventions, both by using the laws we have and seeking new authority where existing rules aren’t enough.
  • Boost resources to vigorously and consistently prosecute trade violations, for everything from investing in the latest technology to hiring trade analysts, subject-matter experts, and translators.
  • Set a high bar for trade agreements, ensuring they create good American jobs, raise wages, and advance our national security.

Strengthen long-term investment in America’s “industrial commons” through regional innovation, infrastructure, and R&D.  

  • Build on and expand upon President Obama’s support for a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation – to leverage the potential of regional hubs that bring together workers, business, universities, and community colleges to develop world-leading technologies and production that anchors good-paying jobs.
  • Prevent the abuse of labor rights, and support the freedom of workers to unionize and engage in collective bargaining, which is vital for establishing the well-paid, sustainable jobs upon which our economy depends.
  • Enhance links between university researchers, entrepreneurs, investors, and industry. 
  • Insist on strong domestic sourcing requirements and “Buy American” laws throughout investments in manufacturing, infrastructure, and other areas that drive demand for good-paying jobs – so that being Made in the USA is a priority. 
  • Provide more Americans access to maker spaces that support innovative design, prototyping, and engineering projects.

Support the skills and training of America’s workforce. America has the potential to win the global competition for advanced manufacturing jobs by harnessing the incredible talent and skills of its workforce. That is why Clinton’s plan will:   

  • Encourage proven, high-quality training and apprenticeships – including a $1,500 tax credit for every apprentice hired through a bona fide apprenticeship program – while insisting on accountability for employment and earnings outcomes.
  • Expand nationwide credentialing with strong industry input that can lead to more and better-paying jobs in every state in the union.
  • Build on models  that allow federal student aid to be used toward high-quality career and technical training programs with promising or proven records—including traditional career and technical education, and innovative, flexible online programs.
  • Provide tuition-free community college, and reduce student debt by allowing students to refinance their loans.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/12/07/winning-competition-for-global-manufacturing-jobs/

Quote

Zero capital gains tax option in hard-hit areas – including manufacturing and coal communities facing the departure of plants and production. To encourage impactful investment in areas that need it most, Clinton’s plan would offer the chance to eliminate capital gains taxes altogether for certain long-term investments in hard-hit communities, from inner-cities to the Rust Belt to coal country to Indian country. This new provision would go hand-in-hand with a permanent, revitalized and expanded New Markets Tax Credit that will increase the amount of credits available to offer to low-income communities, and add new credits for hard-hit communities that have seen jobs and production depart. This expansion of the New Markets Tax Credit will encourage investments to prevent communities from spiraling downward after a major economic shift or plant closing – whether it is in a manufacturing community or a coal community.

  • Preventing downward spirals: The reason for broadening eligibility for the expanded New Markets Tax Credit beyond purely low-income communities is that, too often, communities faced with a major job loss event or the departure of production see a "downward spiral" of departing human capital and degrading physical capital left behind.5 This proposal could help prevent downward spirals in communities hit hard by the consequences of trade or climate change, and emphasize long-term, sustainable investment to diversify industries and prevent a flight of human and physical capital after a major job-loss event.
  • Encouraging investment and creating jobs in hard-hit communities: The New Markets Tax Credit brought billions of dollars of tax relief and investment to hard-hit communities over the past decade. An evaluation of the effects of the credit by the Urban Institute concluded that "the most prevalent results were provision of advantageous financing, real estate development in low-income areas, additions to local tax bases, and job creation or retention."6

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/24/encourage-long-term-growth/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why I Will Never Vote for Donald Trump

Peter Wehner JAN. 14, 2016

Beginning with Ronald Reagan, I have voted Republican in every presidential election since I first became eligible to vote in 1980. I worked in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and in the White House for George W. Bush as a speechwriter and adviser. I have also worked for Republican presidential campaigns, although not this time around.

Despite this history, and in important ways because of it, I will not vote for Donald Trump if he wins the Republican nomination.

I should add that neither could I vote in good conscience for Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats running for president, since they oppose many of the things I have stood for in my career as a conservative — and, in the case of Mrs. Clinton, because I consider her an ethical wreck. If Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton were the Republican and Democratic nominees, I would prefer to vote for a responsible third-party alternative; absent that option, I would simply not cast a ballot for president. A lot of Republicans, I suspect, would do the same.

There are many reasons to abstain from voting for Mr. Trump if he is nominated, starting with the fact that he would be the most unqualified president in American history. Every one of our 44 presidents has had either government or military experience before being sworn in. Mr. Trump, a real estate mogul and former reality-television star, hasn’t served a day in public office or the armed forces.

During the course of this campaign he has repeatedly revealed his ignorance on basic matters of national interest — the three ways the United States is capable of firing nuclear weapons (by land, sea and air), the difference between the Quds Force in Iran and the Kurds to their west, North Korea’s nuclear tests, the causes of autism, the effects of his tax plan on the deficit and much besides.

Mr. Trump has no desire to acquaint himself with most issues, let alone master them. He has admitted that he doesn’t prepare for debates or study briefing books; he believes such things get in the way of a good performance. No major presidential candidate has ever been quite as disdainful of knowledge, as indifferent to facts, as untroubled by his benightedness.

It is little surprise, then, that many of Mr. Trump’s most celebrated pronouncements and promises — to quickly and “humanely” expel 11 million illegal immigrants, to force Mexico to pay for the wall he will build on our southern border, to defeat the Islamic State “very quickly” while as a bonus taking its oil, to bar Muslims from immigrating to the United States — are nativistic pipe dreams and public relations stunts.

Even more disqualifying is Mr. Trump’s temperament. He is erratic, inconsistent and unprincipled. He possesses a streak of crudity and cruelty that manifested itself in how he physically mocked a Times journalist with a disability, ridiculed Senator John McCain for being a P.O.W., made a reference to “blood” intended to degrade a female journalist and compared one of his opponents to a child molester.

Mr. Trump’s legendary narcissism would be comical were it not dangerous in someone seeking the nation’s highest office — as he demonstrated when he showered praise on the brutal, anti-American president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, responding to Mr. Putin’s expression of admiration for Mr. Trump.

“It is always a great honor,” Mr. Trump said last month, “to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.”

Mr. Trump’s virulent combination of ignorance, emotional instability, demagogy, solipsism and vindictiveness would do more than result in a failed presidency; it could very well lead to national catastrophe. The prospect of Donald Trump as commander in chief should send a chill down the spine of every American.

For Republicans, there is an additional reason not to vote for Mr. Trump. His nomination would pose a profound threat to the Republican Party and conservatism, in ways that Hillary Clinton never could. For while Mrs. Clinton could inflict a defeat on the Republican Party, she could not redefine it. But Mr. Trump, if he were the Republican nominee, would.

Mr. Trump’s presence in the 2016 race has already had pernicious effects, but they’re nothing compared with what would happen if he were the Republican standard-bearer. The nominee, after all, is the leader of the party; he gives it shape and definition. If Mr. Trump heads the Republican Party, it will no longer be a conservative party; it will be an angry, bigoted, populist one. Mr. Trump would represent a dramatic break with and a fundamental assault on the party’s best traditions.

The Republican Party’s best traditions, of course, have not always been evident. (The same is true of the Democratic Party, by the way.) Over the years we have seen antecedents of today’s Trumpism both on issues and in style — for example, in Pat Buchanan’s presidential campaigns in the 1990s, in Sarah Palin’s rise in the party, in the reckless rhetoric of some on the right like Ann Coulter.

The sentiments animating these individuals have had influence in the party, and in recent years growing influence. But they have not been dominant and they have certainly never been in control. Mr. Trump’s securing the Republican nomination would change all that. Whatever problems one might be tempted to lay at the feet of the Republican Party, Donald Trump is in a different and more destructive category.

In these pages in July 1980, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the Democratic senator from New York, declared, “Of a sudden, the G.O.P. has become a party of ideas.” If Mr. Trump wins the nomination, the G.O.P. will become the party of anti-reason.

I will go further: Mr. Trump is precisely the kind of man our system of government was designed to avoid, the type of leader our founders feared — a demagogic figure who does not view himself as part of our constitutional system but rather as an alternative to it.

I understand that it often happens that those of us in politics don’t get the nominee we want, yet we nevertheless unify behind the candidate who wins our party’s nomination. If those who don’t get their way pick up their marbles and go home, party politics doesn’t work. That has always been my view, until now. Donald Trump has altered the political equation because he has altered the moral equation. For this lifelong Republican, at least, he is beyond the pale. Party loyalty has limits.

No votes have yet been cast, primary elections are fluid, and sobriety often prevails, so Mr. Trump is hardly the inevitable Republican nominee. But, stunningly, that is now something that is quite conceivable. If this scenario comes to pass, many Republicans will find themselves in a situation they once thought unimaginable: refusing to support the nominee of their party because it is the best thing that they can do for their party and their country.

Peter Wehner, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, served in the last three Republican administrations and is a contributing opinion writer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/opinion/campaign-stops/why-i-will-never-vote-for-donald-trump.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump has a big problem in the general that he doesn't have in the primary: the staggering amount of misogynystic, racist, and xenophobic things he's said on and off camera over the years. Republican primary candidates have mostly not focused on those things in their attacks because, spoiler, they also need to cater to the surprisingly large segment of republican voters who approve of those misogynystic, racist, and xenophobic comments.

Dems will not have that problem because that crowd was never going to vote Dem. Moderate republicans and independents are another matter, however, and I guarantee that Hillary already has a couple staffers splicing together clips of Trump saying awful things for ads that will run ad nauseam in the run up to the general election.

Edited by BrockSamson
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BrockSamson said:

Trump has a big problem in the general that he doesn't have in the primary: the staggering amount of misogynystic, racist, and xenophobic things he's said on and off camera over the years. Republican primary candidates have mostly not focused on those things in their attacks because, spoiler, they also need to cater to the surprisingly large segment of republican voters who approve of those misogynystic, racist, and xenophobic comments.

Dems will not have that problem because that crowd was never going to vote Dem. Moderate republicans and independents are another matter, however, and I guarantee that Hillary already has a couple staffers splicing together clips of Trump saying awful things for ads that will run ad nauseam in the run up to the general election.

The issue isn't Trump's electibility. He's throughly unqualified and unelectable by any metric. It's the mere possibility that voters in this country will have the choice of him or Hillary Clinton as the next president. That of itself is an unabashed national tragedy. If we truly deserve the leadership that we have, then what does that say about us as a nation? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...