Re: 2016 Election
 

No, I don't think it's a twin trophy thing exactly. Hillary is ambitious in her own right. She is quite talented and adept at policy. She is also trusted on social issues by those who are most invested. As a matter of voting, her platform is that of the Democratic party here in the US and any Democrat should feel very good about having her as a candidate. It could be a lot worse.

On the other hand.

She has a lot of personal baggage and, be it right or wrong, she and her husband have a sleazy reputation. Much of it deserved but doesn't necessarily impact her ability to govern. I have reservations with her specifically because she (1) supports the death penalty and (2) she's very hawkish on foreign policy. Her right wing tendencies are still considerably less than any of the Republican candidates.

Re: 2016 Election
 

I just keep remembering watching people interviewed, mostly women, saying they would vote for Thatcher because it was time a female ran the country. Didn't matter if they were Tory or Labour followers they just wanted to vote for gender.

It could still happen. People can be very easily swayed,that is so obvious when you see the Trump followers:thumbdown:

Re: 2016 Election
 

Lindsey Graham seems to be mouthing off quite a bit. I don't think he likes Trump one bit. One wonders if a large enough faction don't like a Trump nominee they might push someone like Graham or even Romney to run as a quasi independent.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Is that more of an issue because of a) she's a Clinton and b) she's a female? I can't imagine any of the other wannabes are squeaky clean and honest. Granted I'm not living in the country and don't understand the whole brouhaha but from what I can see she is the only person who seems to know what she's doing and how to do the job. Everyone else seems to be a psycho or fundie with no real clue as to the bigger (final) picture.

Re: 2016 Election
 

He can't stand Cruz and has said so many times, but has suggested the party faithful rally around him.
Bloomberg remains a possible independent. Especially with Hillary and Donald's high negatives.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Well, it's getting a bit late in the game for a new player, regardless of how sensible they may be.

The battle lines are drawn now. Voters on each side care less about issues now, they just want their team to win.

And if for any reason you find that questionable, just look at Trump's success here. Largely appealing by emotional rhetoric, largely void of any tangible issues, and the few he's offering are for the most part, sensational rather than substantive. His base is so loyal, they'd vote for him no matter what. Hell, even I find his personality uplifting in some ways. But as president?

Re: 2016 Election
 

Colorado led the way, felt the Bern.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Most pundits this morning have stated that the flame is almost out after last night.

Time for Bernie fans to accept the inevitable - that Clinton will be the Democrat Party's nomination?

Re: 2016 Election
 

:thumbdown:

Never

Re: 2016 Election
 

Clinton even won in Massachusetts. If Bernie can't win there, he's pretty much done.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Recycling two old rejects like Graham and Romney would be a total waste of time and effort

Re: 2016 Election
 

True, they were just the first names I thought of. Maybe Cruz will run?

Re: 2016 Election
 

So, the guy that just lost to Trump will now defeat him?

Let's face it the GOP are pretty much fcked whatever they do now.

1) Trump gets an absolute majority of the delegates. He's the nominee.
2) Trump gets a relative majority. GOP sucks it up and nominates him.
3) Trump gets a relative majority. Shenanigans at the conference and someone else is the nominee. Trump throws his toys out the pram and runs as an independent.

The only hope is that another candidate gets a relative majority. Right now there's no indication it's going to happen. If everyone else dropped out tomorrow then it could be Cruz, but I don't see it happening.

Of course the real worry is that Trump wins the whole thing. Then we're all fcked.

Re: 2016 Election
 

With Cruz continuing to win some states, he's so unlikely to drop out. And with Rubio being the only 'establishment' candidate, he too is unlikely to drop out. So I think it's shaping up to be a messy situation with Trump continuing to benefit.

I personally think Cruz would be easiest for Hillary to beat; he's just so utterly unlikable, and his far-right views on women and family should be easy to play against him. Rubio is clearly the inexperienced one in terms of debating, but with the full weight of the party behind him, maybe could put up a decent fight. But his views on women/family also should count against him. So that leaves Trump. He's such a 'wild card' when it comes to how he'd behave in the General. I can just see him saying 'anything' to get attention and votes, utterly ignoring reality, and he might prove really hard to beat. Normally, I'd have expected voters to be utterly turned off by such behavior but this guy seems to have a magic touch that lets him get away with it.

So bottom line, I don't even know who I want to win the GOP nomination!

And in the unlikely/unthinkable case where one of them actually WINS (the General), who then would I want ... ? The one least likely to do damage to the country. I don't like the agenda of Rubio or Cruz, for sure. I despise so much of what Trump has said, but as a few have mentioned here, he'll probably walk back much of his extreme rhetoric and install some pragmatic no-nonsense operatives in his cabinet and ... we know he'll compromise a lot more than the others. So as of now, I think I'd say that I'd prefer Trump to win out of the three ... (washes mouth out with bleach...).

Re: 2016 Election
 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...9868?cid=bitly

While Trump disavowed the kkk like a 3 year old told to say sorry, his rallies continue to be filled by identified white supremacist groups.