2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Eric Cartman · 20-07-2015 02:21AM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

No idea what you're on about there, the email and benghazi scandals are no bigger than a lot of what the GOP candidates have, her 'anti business min. wage' is just your opinion; raising the min. wage is a vital element of solving income inequality and that is a shared opinion among 99.9% of Democrats, not just her supporters. Flipflopping on gay marriage can be attributed to most candidates in American politics, not just her. Besides, it's of little relevance now that gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. Nobody gives a damn what FOX news does to her, because aside from a very, very small minority of Americans, nobody gives a damn about FOX news at all.

The longer Trump stays in the race, the bigger Hillary's lead over the Jeb Bush and the GOP candidates grows. She will walk this election.

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/14/fiorina-gets-rise-gop-ratings-after-presidential-a/ yougov 2015 poll, 22% said they wouldnt vote for a female president and 23% are not sure. so its not something I pulled out of nowhere.

the democrats and the left may be fine with raising the minimum wage, a lot of right leaning swing voters and business owners would not. I would argue for no minimum wage, but thats a different topic for a different thread.

49% of americans say they trust fox news, so its not a tiny backwards minority. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/27/fox-news-most-popular

20Cent · 20-07-2015 02:51AM

First thing trump did after buying Doonbeg golf course was close it for the winter months and get job bridge people to work there. michael noonan practically blew him at the airport with a river dance show on arrival. Was in a pub there when a trump minibus pulled up everyone groaned at these plonkers coming in. Listen to the Howard Stern interview with him he doesn't care about gay marriage guns or abortion but rabbits whatever the redneck or tea party crowd want. Total bull****ter.

alaimacerc · 20-07-2015 03:25AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/14/fiorina-gets-rise-gop-ratings-after-presidential-a/ yougov 2015 poll, 22% said they wouldnt vote for a female president and 23% are not sure. so its not something I pulled out of nowhere.

But how many of these... fine people would vote Democrat under any circumstances? My suspicion is this is likely to be another "Southern Pride" type of issue.

Also offsetting this is a certain (admittedly fairly cod) feminist narrative that would urge voting for a female candidate because they're a female candidate. I'm sure it's smaller than the above. But equally, I'm sure relatively more of them of them are genuine swing voters.

alaimacerc · 20-07-2015 03:43AM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The longer Trump stays in the race, the bigger Hillary's lead over the Jeb Bush and the GOP candidates grows.

I'm not so sure. The question is, "is Jeb Bush an idiot?" Because if not, surely all he has to do is to steer a steady course, and wait until Trump inevitably flames out. What percentage is there in trying to out-Trump Trump? It requires not just trending right, which is standard primary fare. It would require trending populist self-contradicting blowhard. Against someone with a life of experience at that. Recall the various pieces of advice about getting into fights.

A final possibility is of course that Bush is indeed a big enough idiot to tack towards the Trump position... but also nimble enough to gybe all the way back. In which case I strongly advise anyone shaking his hand to count their fingers after.

InTheTrees · 20-07-2015 05:07AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

but fox news will tear chunks out of her and we have to remember that while we laugh at it like it was the onion, a huge chunk of the US take it as gospel

They didnt exactly embrace Obama you know. Theyve been tearing him to shreds for over seven years now. I think the heyday of Fox News is over. Their bias is now accepted at least.

And the numbers? They beat out the other cable news networks but they still only attract a fraction of the viewers that the networks nightly news shows reach.

MightyMandarin · 20-07-2015 11:31AM

alaimacerc wrote: »

I'm not so sure. The question is, "is Jeb Bush an idiot?" Because if not, surely all he has to do is to steer a steady course, and wait until Trump inevitably flames out. What percentage is there in trying to out-Trump Trump? It requires not just trending right, which is standard primary fare. It would require trending populist self-contradicting blowhard. Against someone with a life of experience at that. Recall the various pieces of advice about getting into fights.

A final possibility is of course that Bush is indeed a big enough idiot to tack towards the Trump position... but also nimble enough to gybe all the way back. In which case I strongly advise anyone shaking his hand to count their fingers after.

It's not necessarily down to Bush, but rather the entire Republican party is being ripped apart. Even now there's a war going on because of what Trump said about McCain's time in Vietnam. All the Democrats and Hillary need to do is stay quiet and let the GOP fight among itself and watch the Independents lean towards them.

Eric Cartman · 20-07-2015 05:29PM

alaimacerc wrote: »

But how many of these... fine people would vote Democrat under any circumstances? My suspicion is this is likely to be another "Southern Pride" type of issue.

Also offsetting this is a certain (admittedly fairly cod) feminist narrative that would urge voting for a female candidate because they're a female candidate. I'm sure it's smaller than the above. But equally, I'm sure relatively more of them of them are genuine swing voters.

I think, like many people , you are of the incorrect belief that anyone with a prejudiced/hateful/ignorant or bigoted bone in their body has to be a republican voter or redneck.

this is simply not the case , as was pointed out earlier, there will be a feminist contingent who hate men who would almost certainly always be democrat voters, a lot of people from minority backgrounds will never vote republican because they have a chip on their shoulder about rich white people.

america can be a pretty dumb place on both sides of the aisle.

Eric Cartman · 20-07-2015 05:34PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

They didnt exactly embrace Obama you know. Theyve been tearing him to shreds for over seven years now. I think the heyday of Fox News is over. Their bias is now accepted at least.

And the numbers? They beat out the other cable news networks but they still only attract a fraction of the viewers that the networks nightly news shows reach.

fox news I'm sure made a dent but obama was a strong candidate with a serious PR machine that could wash over it, also the amount of minorities in america who were going to vote for him in solidarity anyway helped.

now we're back to white on white candidates and the solidarity just isn't there for gender , Hillary has skeletons in her closet and just doesn't have the media machine to get over the hill Id say. almost anyone the GOP pick will be more charismatic than her.

we also have history to contend with, not since the democratic republican party in the 1800s have the dems won 3 in a row.

K-9 · 20-07-2015 06:27PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/14/fiorina-gets-rise-gop-ratings-after-presidential-a/ yougov 2015 poll, 22% said they wouldnt vote for a female president and 23% are not sure. so its not something I pulled out of nowhere.

I can't see where you are getting those figures. Can you point then out?

Eric Cartman · 20-07-2015 06:33PM

K-9 wrote: »

I can't see where you are getting those figures. Can you point then out?

K-9 · 20-07-2015 06:45PM

That struck me as an odd question, it isn't asking what you'd vote, just predict how others you know would. Its very hard to make head nor tail of how actually useful that info is! It's very vague so unless there are other polls to back it up more clearly, I'm not sure how reliable it is to hold it up as some type of definitive poll.

51% of Independents would, with 25% unsure.

Bloody odd that it even matters this day and age.

Eric Cartman · 20-07-2015 06:54PM

K-9 wrote: »

That struck me as an odd question, it isn't asking what you'd vote, just predict how others you know would. Its very hard to make head nor tail of how actually useful that info is! It's very vague so unless there are other polls to back it up more clearly, I'm not sure how reliable it is to hold it up as some type of definitive poll.

51% of Independents would, with 25% unsure.

Bloody odd that it even matters this day and age.

ill dig up the paper I read on this before , but basically its a method of questioning to get accurate answers to potentially offensive questions.

if you ask somebody directly would they vote for a woman / minority, a lot of the time people will say yes because they know it comes across as bigoted and polls get inaccurate pretty quick.

whereas if you ask people what you think their peers would vote, they always like to think of their own views as being the commonly held one, so are likely to answer accurately based on them not being the guilty party if the answer is the 'wrong' one, now I'm sure this method still skews responses but its a lot more accurate than asking the question directly.

I remember reading it and it was fascinating , when obama was in the midst in 2007 they tried it out and asked 1000 people directly and 1000 via this method if they'd vote for a black man or not, when asked directly the yes rate was massive (90 something percent i believe) indirectly it was closer to 75-25 which is what you'd expect to find.

MightyMandarin · 20-07-2015 07:05PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I remember reading it and it was fascinating , when obama was in the midst in 2007 they tried it out and asked 1000 people directly and 1000 via this method if they'd vote for a black man or not, when asked directly the yes rate was massive (90 something percent i believe) indirectly it was closer to 75-25 which is what you'd expect to find.

So that means that more than 55% of people would vote for a woman then, given the comparison between indirect and direct questioning.

I don't think most people have a problem with voting for a woman or not. Republicans had little issue getting behind Palin, and in fact played up the 'woman vote' during the campaign.

I'd say more Americans have a problem with voting voting for a black or hispanic person than a woman.

K-9 · 20-07-2015 07:11PM

I was wondering that about Obama as well.

I'd say they are right in that the fact Hilary is running makes it a more partisan issue, some Democrats will have no problem with a woman because well Hilary, and some Republicans will suddenly have a problem, because well Hilary.

Would be interesting to see if the figures changed at all from last time, and if sonething comparable was done on Palin before. Polls are great fun for contradictory answers!

Eric Cartman · 20-07-2015 07:13PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

So that means that more than 55% of people would vote for a woman then, given the comparison between indirect and direct questioning.

I don't think most people have a problem with voting for a woman or not. Republicans had little issue getting behind Palin, and in fact played up the 'woman vote' during the campaign.

I'd say more Americans have a problem with voting voting for a black or hispanic person than a woman.

most people in america seem to have no issue voting for a woman , and apparently they don't really have an issue with black people either.

but I think in the case of Hillary its a small nail to join the other hundreds of small nails to keep her coffin closed and her out of the oval office.

MightyMandarin · 20-07-2015 07:21PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

most people in america seem to have no issue voting for a woman , and apparently they don't really have an issue with black people either.

but I think in the case of Hillary its a small nail to join the other hundreds of small nails to keep her coffin closed and her out of the oval office.

I honestly cannot see why you think she has no chance of winning. Every 'nail' you've suggested is either meaningless or no different to what other candidates have to deal with.

She's going to win the Democratic nomination with a landslide because Sanders is a socialist, and there are no other candidates with the funds to challenge her. The republicans are in turmoil and Trump has ripped them apart. Bush will probably win the nomination but I can't see the majority of Americans looking past the name 'Bush' and actually voting for him.

The hatred for Hillary exists only in Republican heartlands; most Americans don't have a totally unfavourable opinion of her.

Eric Cartman · 20-07-2015 07:31PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I honestly cannot see why you think she has no chance of winning. Every 'nail' you've suggested is either meaningless or no different to what other candidates have to deal with.

She's going to win the Democratic nomination with a landslide because Sanders is a socialist, and there are no other candidates with the funds to challenge her. The republicans are in turmoil and Trump has ripped them apart. Bush will probably win the nomination but I can't see the majority of Americans looking past the name 'Bush' and actually voting for him.

The hatred for Hillary exists only in Republican heartlands; most Americans don't have a totally unfavourable opinion of her.

it exists in a lot more than republican heartlands , why are you so unwilling to believe that anyone bar gun toting southerners could dislike hillary.

I will guarantee you now, bar some absolutely massive republican scandal breaking before next november , hillary will not be in the white house. She will almost certainly get her party nomination , but a decent republican showing and no massive screwups and it'll be a bush, trump or walker in the oval office.

K-9 · 20-07-2015 07:31PM

That's the thing, Bush has similar detractors simply because he's a Bush.

When do the primaries start? I've a suspicion Trump won't last too long into them.

eire4 · 20-07-2015 07:33PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Walker just tried to introduce leglislation in WI last week that would have completely rolled back the freedom of information laws in the state.

Unbelievable.

There was statewide outcry and the bill was defeated by his own party.

This was just last week.

It must have been really bad if his own party sunk the bill as they control both houses in the Wisconsin legislature.

eire4 · 20-07-2015 07:41PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's not just Democrats who identified this, Independent analysts and Republicans know that there are simply more Hispanic and Black people than White people in the US right now, and will continue to struggle to win Presidential elections as long as their candidates continue to adhere to strong Conservative values. While local and State elections are a completely different matter, it's becoming increasingly difficult for the GOP to take the White House, mostly due to the Tea Party. The main reason that Democrats consistently lead 'Get out the Vote' campaigns is because they know the votes are there, they just have to drag them to the polling booth.

There is no question as long as Republicans keep behaving as they are in alienating hispanic voters and also other miniorites as well as women they are going to struggle to win national elections unless they can stop those groups from voting.

It should be pointed out though that while the hispanic population is growing in the US that the white population still makes up the majority of Americans at the moment.

eire4 · 20-07-2015 07:45PM

zielarz wrote: »

I think many people on the 'left' are afraid of Trump. Misquoting or cutting his statements became a norm. They just keep repeating the same misconceptions about him and keep labeling him as racist, clown etc. This is typical liberal way of discrediting a person. I just hope American people are wiser and won't buy it.

I like him, he's authentic, honest, he can say what he think, exposes many things that are wrong with America today. I think republican voters take him seriously, otherwise he wouldn't be at the top of the polls.

I would say many people on the left are hoping he wins the Republican nomination rather then being afraid of him.
He has made racist statements hence why he has been called a racist.

eire4 · 20-07-2015 07:57PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/14/fiorina-gets-rise-gop-ratings-after-presidential-a/ yougov 2015 poll, 22% said they wouldnt vote for a female president and 23% are not sure. so its not something I pulled out of nowhere.

the democrats and the left may be fine with raising the minimum wage, a lot of right leaning swing voters and business owners would not. I would argue for no minimum wage, but thats a different topic for a different thread.

49% of americans say they trust fox news, so its not a tiny backwards minority. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/27/fox-news-most-popular

All those numbers show is how bad things are with where and how people in the US get their news when so many say they trust what is quite openly a Republican propaganda station not a news channel as been true. Or maybe its simply the case that the US is a 2 party monopoly politically so when a station is as openly a propaganda newtork for one party as Fox is it is going to garner a significant viewing as there are no genuine altrenatives for Americans politically.

BuilderPlumber · 20-07-2015 09:29PM

PolaroidPizza wrote: »

am I the only one worried at the close links between Tourism Ireland and Donald Trumps Doonbeg venture? This man has openly called the entire nation of Mexico 'rapists and thieves', and yet our government board is happy to accept his advertisement money for his development, and host conferences at his golf club.

Quite a number of US companies have already severed ties with him based on these recent openly racist outbursts, yet tourism Ireland have no problem associating with him?
Another case of us accepting US dollars unquestioningly I think.

Trump comes across as arrogant, racist and full of himself. He is a mixture of GW Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 2 failed presidents who left their countries in a worse shape than they were when the started, and is actually much much WORSE than them. Because Trump does not have any redeeming features at all. Bush and Ahmadinejad said outrageous things but they weren't even close to the blatant racism that Trump uses.

His remarks on Mexico were disgusting. Could we expect a war between the US and Mexico? Perhaps, it could be a possibility. Trump is the sort who would invite wars and tired of the Middle East may look elsewhere. I could see a war on Latin American countries all done under a war on drugs that fund terrorism banner and this could see the US knock out Venezuela and grab its oil. Then, intervention in Mexico at first 'helping' the government there to fight drug cartels. Then, the same with Colombia. The real agenda will be of course to stamp out any 'communist' threats (i.e. countries who elect leaders not willing to play ball with US corporations run by the likes of Trump).

K-9 · 20-07-2015 09:47PM

Did he apologise about the McCain comment?

InTheTrees · 20-07-2015 10:18PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

fox news I'm sure made a dent but obama was a strong candidate with a serious PR machine that could wash over it, also the amount of minorities in america who were going to vote for him in solidarity anyway helped

Obama was a revolution.

JfK had to make a speech to address concerns that he would take orders from the pope because he was Catholic.

And then 40 odd years later the Usa is faced with a presidential candidate who's middle name is Hussain . Unbelievable. And hes Black too. Fox were claiming he wasn't even eligible.

Its a miracle he was elected and John mccains lunacy in adopting Sarah paling as VP had a lot to do with it.

InTheTrees · 20-07-2015 10:21PM

eire4 wrote: »

I would say many people on the left are hoping he wins the Republican nomination rather then being afraid of him.
He has made racist statements hence why he has been called a racist.

Trump would be a dream opponent for the Democrats.

But there's no chance of him getting the nomination.

InTheTrees · 20-07-2015 10:25PM

eire4 wrote: »

It must have been really bad if his own party sunk the bill as they control both houses in the Wisconsin legislature.

It was bad.

Enough that there is no way he can criticise Hillary for not making public her official email. Because he just tried to change the law in Wisconsin so that all gov communication would remain secret.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/scott-walker-calls-for-open-records-overhaul-to-be-completely-removed-or-changed-b99532073z1-311638151.html

KingBrian2 · 20-07-2015 10:25PM

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Trump comes across as arrogant, racist and full of himself. He is a mixture of GW Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, 2 failed presidents who left their countries in a worse shape than they were when the started, and is actually much much WORSE than them. Because Trump does not have any redeeming features at all. Bush and Ahmadinejad said outrageous things but they weren't even close to the blatant racism that Trump uses.

His remarks on Mexico were disgusting. Could we expect a war between the US and Mexico? Perhaps, it could be a possibility. Trump is the sort who would invite wars and tired of the Middle East may look elsewhere. I could see a war on Latin American countries all done under a war on drugs that fund terrorism banner and this could see the US knock out Venezuela and grab its oil. Then, intervention in Mexico at first 'helping' the government there to fight drug cartels. Then, the same with Colombia. The real agenda will be of course to stamp out any 'communist' threats (i.e. countries who elect leaders not willing to play ball with US corporations run by the likes of Trump).

Trump speaks for a constituency that lives across the border from the cartels. These people are loud and arrogant having already obstructed President Obama's immigration policy. They already contribute generously to the coffers of Washington politics. Alienate these people at your peril.

Eric Cartman · 20-07-2015 10:45PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Obama was a revolution.

JfK had to make a speech to address concerns that he would take orders from the pope because he was Catholic.

And then 40 odd years later the Usa is faced with a presidential candidate who's middle name is Hussain . Unbelievable. And hes Black too. Fox were claiming he wasn't even eligible.

Its a miracle he was elected and John mccains lunacy in adopting Sarah paling as VP had a lot to do with it.

Im no obama fan but he was still a much stronger candidate than clinton is now, also you were coming out of a 2 term republican cluster*ck generated by bush, nobody was going to vote republican again after that mess-up. now were on the other side, people are unhappy with obamas failures and how left he leans at times.

alaimacerc · 20-07-2015 11:32PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think, like many people , you are of the incorrect belief that anyone with a prejudiced/hateful/ignorant or bigoted bone in their body has to be a republican voter or redneck.

I note that you don't actually say that I say this, just that you think I think it. Maybe this would be more productively kept on less sketchily hypothetical grounds.

this is simply not the case , as was pointed out earlier, there will be a feminist contingent who hate men who would almost certainly always be democrat voters, a lot of people from minority backgrounds will never vote republican because they have a chip on their shoulder about rich white people.

None of which tells us anything about the size of these alleged contingents, or indeed backs up the aptness of your characterisation. And none of which is pertinent to your earlier "distrust of women in politics" claims. Which your own source indeed backs up my counter-contention on:

YouGov wrote:

Hillary Clinton, of course, currently dominates the race on the Democratic side. Likely because of this, both Democrats and Republicans say the Democratic Party is ready to nominate a woman. 84% of Democrats and 72% of Republicans agree on that.

Partisan differences also appear when Americans are asked whether or not most of the people they know would vote for a woman for President. Although the question is generic, it appears that at least some may be seeing the questions as a referendum on Hillary Clinton. Two-thirds of Democrats and a majority of independents say most of the people they know would vote for a woman. But only 41% of Republicans agree.

2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Comments