The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates [Poll updated!]

[Cassandra LeMay]

It would be the Republican party pressing the big red button and I'm not sure they'd do it. Right now it looks like even if Trump doesn't win outright over the course of the remaining states he's still going to have a big lead come the convention and if he walks into that convention as the "winner" of this campaign, even without having quite hit 1,237 delegates and the Republican establishment find a way to make someone else the candidate then it would likely be political suicide for them. Trump may or may not run as a third party candidate (if he did he'd likely struggle... or even find it impossible... to get on the ballot of every state considering the deadlines) but even if he doesn't there's going to be a whole load of people who voted for Trump in the primaries who would be absolutely disgusted and not vote for whoever the candidate does end up being. That doesn't just hand the Presidency to the Democrats... it likely hands the House and Senate to them as well. But maybe it's a price they consider worth paying. I think it's one of the reasons Trump keeps emphasizing bringing the Republican party together and how many new voters he's bringing in in his victory speeches; not just as an attempt to convince the powers-that-be to get behind him but also to point out what they'd be losing out on.

I don't know what the deadlines are for running an independent candidacy, but if I were Trump I would (very quietly) find someone willing to do the job and get him registered as a presidential cadidate in all the states while there is still time. If Trump doesn't get the GOP nomination he can run as VP for his patsy and everyone knew they would really be electing president Trump in all but name if they voted for that "independent" guy.

As for the GOP, I think they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they block a Trump run and find someone else to run on the Republican ticket they'll lose the Trump supporters for good. But what if they nominate Trump and he loses the presidential race? Once that genie is out of the bottle it will be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to run an "establishment candidate" any time soon. My impression is that GOP has had a tendency to drift more right after anything they perceive as a defeat for the last ... say 20 years or so. With a Trump candidacy that doesn't win the White House the GOP establishment might well be finished if the party continues that trend. One way or the other I don't see how the GOP can return to "business as usual" after Trump. Whatever comes after 2016, they can either lose the Trump supporters for good, or start pandering to them and leaving any "middle ground politics" for good. Maybe there are some in the GOP establishment who think denying Trump the nomination would be their best course of action as it would at least demonstrate that they still have some say in these things.

[ReijiTabibito]

The GOP pretty much is screwed either way.  But that's what you get when you abdicate your responsibilities to the people who voted for you in order to make a career out of being an obstructive bureaucrat.   Frankly, I hope whatever the outcome of this election is on the right, that it is impossible for an 'establishment candidate' to run in the memories of anyone who lived through this time.  The political establishment has no interest in governance, they have no interest in improving the lives of the average American, all they want is their infinite re-elections.  If you're going to make the argument - as the left does - that government should be involved in the lives of the people, then it had better damn well be an involvement that improves the lives of said people.  You want your infinite re-elections?  Earn them.

[Cycle]

Huh.  So Clinton won all five states.  Didn't expect that.

Looks like she's now ahead by 300 pledged delegates (and increase of about 100), and 800 total delegates away from clinching the nomination. 

Sanders looks good for the next six states coming up, but even if he won 100% of the delegates in those states (which he won't do), he still can't erase Clinton's 300 lead.

[elone]

We may end up with a presidential choice of either Clinton or Trump. We would be the laughing stock of the world. Hillary, the "I will say and do anything to win," candidate of the establishment, and the Donald, who I can't even describe.

I guess there is always the hope that Clinton will get indicted and the Donald will fade and lose in a brokered convention. My fingers are crossed.

Who else is running?

[Oniya]

What bugs the hell out of me is that Bill has been spotted inside polling sites in at least two states.  He visited 4 polling sites in Massachusetts, and at least one in Illinois.  All states have rules against campaigning within a certain distance of voting sites for both primary and general elections.  You aren't even allowed to wear candidate buttons or t-shirts into a polling center.

[gaggedLouise]

We may end up with a presidential choice of either Clinton or Trump. We would be the laughing stock of the world. Hillary, the "I will say and do anything to win," candidate of the establishment, and the Donald, who I can't even describe.

I guess there is always the hope that Clinton will get indicted and the Donald will fade and lose in a brokered convention. My fingers are crossed.

I hope nobody gets shot - that would be the ultimate campaigning disaster, and would throw a very long shadow ahead. And there could be crazies around who think either Sanders, Clinton or Trump need to be removed by force. ::)

[Oniya]

There's already been one idjit who posted his desire to do so on Facebook.  The FBI was notified, and I'm betting that said idjit got 'educated' about what happens to people who make threats like that.

[gaggedLouise]

There's already been one idjit who posted his desire to do so on Facebook.  The FBI was notified, and I'm betting that said idjit got 'educated' about what happens to people who make threats like that.

Good for him. There was a guy I saw posting on a big talk forum around here up north, saying bluntly: "My stepfather is beating up and abusing mom, I am getting desperate but I need some advice on how to kill him and make sure it looks like suicide!". That was probably just a troll, but he kept up the part with dozens of replies while people were suggesting methods (more or less jokey) or jibing at him. ;D "U R already smoked man...if you didn't post this through a VPN I think you're gonna find yourself assisting the police"  :P

[ReijiTabibito]

We may end up with a presidential choice of either Clinton or Trump. We would be the laughing stock of the world. Hillary, the "I will say and do anything to win," candidate of the establishment, and the Donald, who I can't even describe.

I guess there is always the hope that Clinton will get indicted and the Donald will fade and lose in a brokered convention. My fingers are crossed.

Who else is running?

Victory for Hillary means sending the following message to the media: you control who gets elected, all you have to do is focus on the same person for an election cycle and stifle any newsworthy reports about anyone you don't agree with.  Victory for Hillary means pretty much 8 more years of what we just had - arguments and political obstruction and nothing getting done.

To me, Bernie's statement of "This is more than a presidential campaign" was the most telling to me about him.  This is not just about occupying the highest office in the land (though that's what it is for Hillary); this is about spreading a message.  Regular Americans have had it up to here with seeing their country slowly slip away from them piece by piece, being handed out piecemeal to corporations and special interest groups.

This was mentioned earlier about Donald, but it's true about Bernie, too - he has changed the landscape.  Even if he doesn't ultimately garner the nomination (through a highly intricate and complex process called cheating), his message has gotten out there, and it's being heard by a ton of people.  Whoever sits in that office is going to have to answer the questions that message poses.

[Cycle]

Victory for Hillary means pretty much 8 more years of what we just had - arguments and political obstruction and nothing getting done.

What makes you think the GOP won't argue with or obstruct Bernie?

[Skynet]

Marco Rubio drops out of the race.

[ReijiTabibito]

What makes you think the GOP won't argue with or obstruct Bernie?

Is there an echo in here?  I feel like there is...

Yes, the political establishment - whatever face it wears - will try and argue and obstruct someone like Bernie.  Because the establishment knows that the Bernies and Trumps of this race are coming to upset what they've built.  Bernie's message has painted a gigantic target on his back.  I don't pretend for a second that Bernie's going to be swept into office on a landslide (unless he's facing Trump, that is) and them magically get everything he wants to accomplished.

The GOP's behavior for the last half-dozen years is clear: do what we tell you, or nothing gets done.  So if the GOP is going to obstruct regardless of whoever it is, then I'd rather have Bernie than Hillary - the true believer over the perennial crowd-pleaser.

[Cycle]

So if the GOP is going to obstruct regardless of whoever it is, then I'd rather have Bernie than Hillary - the true believer over the perennial crowd-pleaser.

Your earlier post made it sound like you thought we'd have a better result with the GOP under Bernie than under Hillary.  That's the fallacy I felt needed to be exposed.

Bernie will get nothing done if he makes it into office.  He doesn't even have the support of most of the Democrats.  None of his grand promises will ever come to fruition.

[consortium11]

I don't know what the deadlines are for running an independent candidacy, but if I were Trump I would (very quietly) find someone willing to do the job and get him registered as a presidential cadidate in all the states while there is still time. If Trump doesn't get the GOP nomination he can run as VP for his patsy and everyone knew they would really be electing president Trump in all but name if they voted for that "independent" guy.

It's not really possible to quietly do a third party run.

If you wanted to be a viable third party candidate then you'd have to get on the ballot of every state. To get on every state ballot would require about 570,000 signatures and you don't gather that many signatures without making a lot of political noise. Truth be told you don't event just want the 570,000 signatures; you want more than that so you've got a buffer to avoid what nearly happened to Kasich in Pennsylvania (he's now back on the ballot but largely because the Rubio supporter who originally challenged him dropped the case when Rubio suspended his campaign). The other thing to consider is deadlines. These are somewhat messy things which are pretty much always subject to legal action but in essence you need to have those signatures by June for a number of states, including Texas. That means you have to start getting them pretty much now to have any chance of making it.

As for the GOP, I think they are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they block a Trump run and find someone else to run on the Republican ticket they'll lose the Trump supporters for good. But what if they nominate Trump and he loses the presidential race? Once that genie is out of the bottle it will be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to run an "establishment candidate" any time soon. My impression is that GOP has had a tendency to drift more right after anything they perceive as a defeat for the last ... say 20 years or so. With a Trump candidacy that doesn't win the White House the GOP establishment might well be finished if the party continues that trend. One way or the other I don't see how the GOP can return to "business as usual" after Trump. Whatever comes after 2016, they can either lose the Trump supporters for good, or start pandering to them and leaving any "middle ground politics" for good. Maybe there are some in the GOP establishment who think denying Trump the nomination would be their best course of action as it would at least demonstrate that they still have some say in these things.

If Trump gets the nomination and loses then I think the direction of the party will be largely dictated by how he loses.

If it's narrow? It'll be a bloodbath, as Trump supporters argue (perhaps correctly) that if the establishment and powers-that-be had got behind Trump and supported him rather than repeatedly try to undermine him then he'd have won the election. There's be talk of betrayal, of getting stabbed in the back and the next set of mid-term elections would likely get extremely messy with any Republican who was alleged to have gone against Trump facing a serious primary challenge in the same way the Tea Party attacked (and succeeded against) the establishment Republicans a few years back.

But if Trump were to lose widely then I think the establishment could reign things in pretty quickly and easily. Those who criticise Trump for not being a true conservative would talk about how he couldn't motivate the base the vote and how they need to get back to "true conservative values". Then they'd talk about his combative style, his trash-talking, his bravado and how those two things combined to lose them the election. The result would likely be a candidate like Kasich (he may be a little old in four years but it may even be Kasich); someone who's an establishment Republican with generally establishment Republican views (and is notably further to the right than Trump on a lot of issues) but largely gets away with it because he speaks calmly and politely.

There's already been one idjit who posted his desire to do so on Facebook.  The FBI was notified, and I'm betting that said idjit got 'educated' about what happens to people who make threats like that.

Twitter's pretty much awash with people saying they want to kill Trump and/or do pretty vile things to his family. I take it about as seriously as anyone should take people using Twitter to vent, but it's still a pretty vast amount. I'm sure all candidates do get their fair share of abuse, but to do a completely unscientific survey search for "assassinate Trump" and "assassinate Hillary" on Twitter and you'll pretty quickly see the difference.

[ReijiTabibito]

Then if you're really convinced that the Democratic candidates will get nothing done, and that the GOP candidates will take us in the entirely wrong direction, stay home on voting day.  Because if nothing's going to happen, then you might as well just not vote to begin with.  Yeah, sure, it'll mean when you complain about how f**king useless Congress is or how it's impossible to get anything done that you won't have actually given your input into the political system, but you know, let's be realistic here, nobody wants anything to get done, so nothing will get done.

[Vekseid]

Victory for Hillary means sending the following message to the media: you control who gets elected, all you have to do is focus on the same person for an election cycle and stifle any newsworthy reports about anyone you don't agree with.  Victory for Hillary means pretty much 8 more years of what we just had - arguments and political obstruction and nothing getting done.

No it doesn't.

Victory for Hillary means she scraped by an election that ought to have been in the bag for her. Sanders and Trump, and more importantly why they were so successful has not gone unnoticed.

I fully expect to see Hillary adopt positions that are part of both Trump's and Sanders' platform. H1B visas, for example.

[Cycle]

Then if you're really convinced that the Democratic candidates will get nothing done, and that the GOP candidates will take us in the entirely wrong direction, stay home on voting day.

I never said that I'm convinced that Clinton will get nothing done.  You said that.  I only said I'm convinced Bernie will not be able to do what he's promising everyone.

[ReijiTabibito]

No it doesn't.

Victory for Hillary means she scraped by an election that ought to have been in the bag for her. Sanders and Trump, and more importantly why they were so successful has not gone unnoticed.

I fully expect to see Hillary adopt positions that are part of both Trump's and Sanders' platform. H1B visas, for example.

Yes, but here's the real question.  Will Hillary actually try and make those changes, or are they just going to be the usual set of empty promises and platitudes that someone who belongs to the political establishment will ride into office on?  Because apparently, it doesn't matter what you said you're going to try and do, it just matters if you're actually going to be able to do it.  Hillary has flip-flopped on a number of issues: gay marriage, immigration, the TPP and other trade agreements.  She might say all the right words, but her record shows that Hillary will do what is best for Hillary.

I never said that I'm convinced that Clinton will get nothing done.  You said that.  I only said I'm convinced Bernie will not be able to do what he's promising everyone.

Nobody would be able to fulfill all of their campaign promises.  You could have a candidate who is the second coming of Jefferson, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts all wrapped up into one package of presidential awesome and they still wouldn't be able to do everything they wanted to do.  Whether or not they can actually get their promises done is not the point.  The point is will they still try?

[TaintedAndDelish]

Victory for Hillary means sending the following message to the media: you control who gets elected, all you have to do is focus on the same person for an election cycle and stifle any newsworthy reports about anyone you don't agree with. 

One small point about the claims that the media chose Trump by giving him free air time and coverage. Unlike the other candidates, Trump made news with his shocking comments. He got coverage not because of their doing by because of his own doing. If any other candidate did or said genuinely newsworthy things, they would have gotten the same kind of news coverage.

I inhale the news daily. I scour over multiple sources sometimes 8 hours a day and yet I've read and watched very little about Rubio or Kasich and as I result, I know very little about who they are and where they stand. I know Rubio is a Puerto Rican and Kasich is from Ohio, but as for where they stand on issues, their temperament, and so on, I've heard very little. This lack of information is their fault, not the media's. Sanders on the other hand has done well to get across his message and who he is and what he stands for, and Hillary too has shown her colors  - even if she is a bit of a chameleon.

[Cycle]

Whether or not they can actually get their promises done is not the point.  The point is will they still try?

On this you and I disagree.  I want a President who is more likely to get what I want done, then one who "tries" but will fail. 

[TheGlyphstone]

On this you and I disagree.  I want a President who is more likely to get what I want done, then one who "tries" but will fail.

Which is why most Bernie supporters feel the way they do; they don't believe Hillary will get what they want done. So they'd rather a candidate who is honest and tries but fails to accomplish what those voters support, over a candidate who is dishonest and while successful, won't be advancing the agenda of said voters.

You come across as someone who is a Clinton supporter outright, rather than simply a Democrat who prefers Hillary over Bernie because she will be more productive.

[Cycle]

Which is why most Bernie supporters feel the way they do; they don't believe Hillary will get what they want done.

Fair enough.  I--and apparently the majority of the Democratic electorate--simply disagree with these Bernie supporters.

You come across as someone who is a Clinton supporter outright, rather than simply a Democrat who prefers Hillary over Bernie because she will be more productive.

Not quite.  I am a registered Independent.  I considered voting for Bernie and dug into his promises and plans.  I was less than impressed by what I found.  I got a strong impression he's selling snake oil.  Worse, I suspect he knows this and is pushing forward simply because of the money and power it brings.  That is why I now openly question Bernie.

[TheGlyphstone]

Fair enough.  I--and apparently the majority of the Democratic electorate--simply disagree with these Bernie supporters.

Not quite.  I am a registered Independent.  I considered voting for Bernie and dug into his promises and plans.  I was less than impressed by what I found.  I got a strong impression he's selling snake oil.  Worse, I suspect he knows this and is pushing forward simply because of the money and power it brings.  That is why I now openly question Bernie.

Which is kind of ironic, because that's how most Bernie supporters view Clinton - someone who will say whatever they need to say to get elected, then turn around and cater to the lobbyists and special interests as per business-as-usual.

[ReijiTabibito]

I got a strong impression he's selling snake oil.  Worse, I suspect he knows this and is pushing forward simply because of the money and power it brings.  That is why I now openly question Bernie.

Except nobody has pushed that forward as criticism.  Nobody.  Hillary hasn't done it, none of the GOP candidates have done it, hell, even Fox News hasn't accused Bernie of this.  Probably has something to do with the fact that he's consistently held the same positions for a long time.  If he is selling Kool-Aid to the average American, then apparently he's had more than a few nips of it himself.

That, or he's been playing a very, very long game.

[Cycle]

Except nobody has pushed that forward as criticism.  Nobody.  Hillary hasn't done it, none of the GOP candidates have done it, hell, even Fox News hasn't accused Bernie of this.

I do my own thinking.  I don't simply listen to what the GOP candidates say, or Fox News, or Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders.