The Mad World of Donald Trump

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

It's starting to look more Trump vs Clinton. .

I still have at least a degree of hope that the 65% of Republicans who loathe Trump can consolidate behind one of the others.

Trump's polling is atrocious even within Republican circles and worse still with the electorate, so in a straight race he'd certainly lose to Clinton, but if he's the candidate Bloomberg may well be tempted into the election as an independent.

And the inevitable centrist vote splitting that would then occur could leave an open route to the White House for Trump.

Scary thought.

Sapphire

vivatifosi wrote: »

It's starting to look more Trump vs Clinton. Though if anyone needs further evidence that global politics is a little funky at the moment, they only need look at what happened in Ireland overnight. The public has turned away from the two main parties.

It seems to me that in many cases people are looking for alternatives, possibly at least partly because politicians are seen to be self-serving and acting in the interests of global financial 'elites' – those who are really running things, in other words, and not for the benefit of 'the people', who these minority global 'elites' look on as cheap as possible fodder for their ever wealthier global enterprises. It could be argued that politicians are always 'self-serving', in that they are ambitious (that's probably what gives them drive), but in the past many were seen to be acting in the interests of their country and people to a greater degree than they are now.

michaels

Sapphire wrote: »

It seems to me that in many cases people are looking for alternatives, possibly at least partly because politicians are seen to be self-serving and acting in the interests of global financial 'elites' – those who are really running things, in other words, and not for the benefit of 'the people', who these minority global 'elites' look on as cheap as possible fodder for their ever wealthier global enterprises. It could be argued that politicians are always 'self-serving', in that they are ambitious (that's probably what gives them drive), but in the past many were seen to be acting in the interests of their country and people to a greater degree than they are now.

Some might argue that because EU membership imposes such control over policy-making it becomes impossible for the main stream parties to differentiate themselves leaving the door wide open to fringe parties who can offer alternatives that could never be implemented.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

It's starting to look more Trump vs Clinton. Though if anyone needs further evidence that global politics is a little funky at the moment, they only need look at what happened in Ireland overnight. The public has turned away from the two main parties.

Bernie is going to be toast on Tuesday IMHO. His electorate seems dominated, like Mr Corbyn's, by latte sipping, white, upper middle-class men. The 12(?) mainland states that vote on Super Tuesday do not have those sort of people at the core of their vote. This sums up The Bern's problem very well:

https://twitter.com/M_Gelin/status/703733569416519680

Clinton winning black voters 84-16, bigger margin than Obama in 2008, when he won 78-19

!!!!!!, Mrs Clinton is more popular with black voters than a black man!

The other problem Bernie has of course is that he's never really been the same since Schnorbitz died.

michaels

It is a tricky one, part of the reason Trump is wnning is because he is getting normal non-voters to vote, so even if Hils is winning the normal dem primary voters, if Saunders were able to find a pool of normally non-voters (young and D Es?) and get them to vote in numbers then he might stand a chance.

Also in the what ifs, suppose the Replublicans had started with a single mainstream candidate would their batte have gone more like clinton-saunders?

Generali

michaels wrote: »

It is a tricky one, part of the reason Trump is wnning is because he is getting normal non-voters to vote, so even if Hils is winning the normal dem primary voters, if Saunders were able to find a pool of normally non-voters (young and D Es?) and get them to vote in numbers then he might stand a chance.

Also in the what ifs, suppose the Replublicans had started with a single mainstream candidate would their batte have gone more like clinton-saunders?

Bernie isn't going to find them though. He's a 'socialist'. The American middle and working classes hate socialists and socialism. He might appeal to some effete HR middle-manager in Concord but his appeal is going to be limited at best among the farmers and miners of Colorado.

vivatifosi

michaels wrote: »

It is a tricky one, part of the reason Trump is wnning is because he is getting normal non-voters to vote, so even if Hils is winning the normal dem primary voters, if Saunders were able to find a pool of normally non-voters (young and D Es?) and get them to vote in numbers then he might stand a chance.

Re Trump... something I heard on the news a week or so back..One of the things he won't have on his side is what the Democrats have done for years, they call people up and offer the Ds and Es free lifts to the polling stations. He would need to put that mechanism in place to get that base out. I wonder if that part of the base will fail to materialise on the day.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

Re Trump... something I heard on the news a week or so back..One of the things he won't have on his side is what the Democrats have done for years, they call people up and offer the Ds and Es free lifts to the polling stations. He would need to put that mechanism in place to get that base out. I wonder if that part of the base will fail to materialise on the day.

There's a theory that Trump can only get a third of the vote. It's enough to get him the GOP nomination but not enough to see him in the Oval Office.

Apparently he's too divisive and won't get the soft Democrats that don't like Ms Clinton and all those other waverers that win you an election.

It's the same problem Mr Corbyn faces in the UK. A plasterer in Romford or a bar owner in Swindon just isn't going to vote for someone that spends their time banging on about Palestine and the IRA and las Malvinas.

uncreative

Yep, the first female President now seems like a marvellous inevitability. The only thing worth debate now is what will Bill be called. The first man?; the first husband?. The presidents role should "care-take" the world and leave it a better place and she is the one to do it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Clinton and trump the big winners from yesterday with 7 states each

Sanders 4 , Cruz 3 and Rubio 1