You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 12:22:50 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates [Poll updated!]  (Read 40659 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BlytheTopic starter

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #200 on: September 28, 2015, 02:47:31 PM »
Moving on.

The Republican field is still pretty large; I'm curious as to who is most likely to drop from the race next. Personally, I think it'll be Pataki or Gilmore. They're not gaining any traction and their poll numbers are dismal.

As for the Democrats, I'm surprised Biden's not in the race. He could potentially have done well, but I'm wondering if Sanders and Hillary present are a bit intimidating for him? And his son Beau did pass away this year, so I'm wondering if he feels up to the challenge of running at all.

Offline ReijiTabibito

  • Gatecrasher
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2009
  • Location: Titanian Autonomous University, Gate Studies Dept.
  • Gender: Male
  • There cannot be another Fall.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #201 on: September 28, 2015, 02:52:30 PM »
Biden, I think, stands a better chance of standing out of the way of the current issue besetting the Democratic side, which is the fact that the establishment (the DNC primarily) seems to want to limit debates when it is in their better interest to start having debates now, so the candidates can begin setting out their positions on various major facets of their presidency.  Unless, of course, they don't want someone explaining their stances on those issues.  (One would little imagine why.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's hardly a term limit on being Vice President of the US.  He might be seeking to re-peat what he did with Obama, and then make a run in 2024 based on 'Vice President for 8 years,' which is CERTAINLY a strong position to come from.

Online Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #202 on: September 28, 2015, 03:00:02 PM »
Moving on.

The Republican field is still pretty large; I'm curious as to who is most likely to drop from the race next. Personally, I think it'll be Pataki or Gilmore. They're not gaining any traction and their poll numbers are dismal.

As for the Democrats, I'm surprised Biden's not in the race. He could potentially have done well, but I'm wondering if Sanders and Hillary present are a bit intimidating for him? And his son Beau did pass away this year, so I'm wondering if he feels up to the challenge of running at all.

Earlier on, Biden said that he was going to have to think long and hard before entering the race.  With what he's been dealing with after the death of his son, he stated that he wasn't certain if he would be able to give it the attention it deserved.  He didn't exactly say 'no', but he was weighing the pros and cons carefully before deciding.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #203 on: October 01, 2015, 10:25:43 AM »
Looks like the deep pockets are losing faith in 3.0.  Good.





Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #204 on: October 01, 2015, 11:20:17 AM »
     Trump is really going at it with the "tough guy on everything" rhetoric.  Which seems to be his ticket to yanking at the darker heart of the Republican party these days?  Now it's 200,000 refugees chalked up for the US are supposedly all fit males (wtf?!) and suspect of terrorist infiltration.   

Quote
In a speech in Keene, New Hampshire, on Wednesday, Trump expressed his revulsion at the idea that the US would take in 200,000 Syrian refugees, warning that “they could be Isis. They are all men and they are all strong.”

     Of course, he's happy to attack just about anyone who can be found 'too weak' on lots of things.  Remember when he said the good soldiers are the ones who don't get captured?  Here we go again.  But now, he wants to go back a century or three and have executions for anyone falling out of line...

Quote
Trump didn’t just criticize refugees and his political rivals though. The Republican frontrunner also went after American military personnel. In a discussion of Bowe Bergdahl, the solider who went awol and was then held hostage by the Taliban for years, Trump suggested the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment.

The Republican frontrunner asked the crowd: “In the old days, what did we do with deserters?” The response came back: “Shoot them.”
     
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 11:22:20 AM by kylie »

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #205 on: October 01, 2015, 11:41:05 AM »
I guess Trump wants to keep his momentum and stay in the news, no matter what. To do that he's got to be more outrageous and polemic every day, come up with a new soundbite every time he opens his mouth. He's painted himself into a corner and now that he's got the (public opinion) tiger by the tail he's caught in a trumpward spiral, having to trump himself every day.

Online Mithlomwen

  • ~ E's resident kilt inspector ~ ~ Atropos ~
  • Goddess
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2008
  • Location: Somewhere between the dark and the light...
  • Gender: Female
  • ~ Thunder only happens when it's raining.... ~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #206 on: October 01, 2015, 12:05:23 PM »
Looks like the deep pockets are losing faith in 3.0.  Good.


Part of me wonders if Jeb figured himself sort of a shoo-in because he's a Bush. 

Offline eBadger

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #207 on: October 01, 2015, 12:44:52 PM »
Looks like the deep pockets are losing faith in 3.0.  Good.

I'm not happy with this at all, actually, considering the combover who is leading the polls.  Jeb seems like a goober, but I'd prefer that to some of the other Republican options that frankly scare the heck out of me. 

Online TheGlyphstone

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #208 on: October 01, 2015, 01:08:49 PM »
Agreed. One reason I always found it hard to really dislike Dubya, regardless of his policies, was that he - in his somewhat clueless manner - came across as having good intentions for the most part. The defining moment for him, to me, was the actual Sept. 11th attack, when the Secret Service wanted to immediately escort him to safety on Air Force One, but he insisted on finishing the storybook he was reading to a group of kindergartners or something. Not exactly prime leadership material for ignoring the big picture, but at the small scale that story sort of endeared him to me. Jeb gives off vague vibes in the same direction, and he has been the governor of Florida, so he's well geared to handle wacky situations at least. Trump IS a wacky situation.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #209 on: October 01, 2015, 01:14:55 PM »
Yeah, see, I don't want to see the emergence of a royal family here in the U.S.  Flat out, no, never, ever, period. 

It's not like there aren't any other non-Trump options.


Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #210 on: October 01, 2015, 06:07:58 PM »
      I have a hard time imagining Trump winning a general election.  In a very short time, he's done even more to alienate Latinos and probably soon immigrants generally, than some of the more awful side of the party did already.  And he's certainly made a start on women too, although that seems to be something of almost a requisite in male Republicans of national stature these days.  Plus, quite a few of the hardcore right may still feel he's too basically big, establishment, change tune on a dime over the years, to really put faith in him no matter where the polls are going.  In that sense, it's just as well if Trump bumps off the competition for now and at least for the moment and the record, demonstrates just how ridiculously far a good chunk of the right is still apparently willing to vote for.  Cause he shouldn't be able to make it in the end, anyway.  It's all popcorn and "Hey look, seems like they really do mean at least some of this shit?  Hmm, now where do you suppose that comes from?" until then.

       The only thing that makes me pause a little is, when is the Democrat field going to settle down?  Hillary can't seem to shake the email business, which is a pretty silly way to lose steam given her overall credentials, but it's still a more substantial issue on principle than (ahem) many of the things people like Trump can build an audience stirring (so far, mostly) hot air about.  Biden might be a "nice" establishment candidate should he ever decide to jump in, but I don't see any particular reason for him to be resoundingly popular.  He has too much of a good old boy feel, and he isn't the most articulate, apart from being ready to speak off the cuff and damn the torpedoes in a just slightly (ahem) Trump-ish way.  Even when he probably actually knows what he's talking about, he has these little shades of Dan Quayle about him that just nag me.   But there's still this lingering question of, how awfully divided things might remain between say, Hillary and Sanders.  Although in the long run, I'm kind of hoping it will be another sort of Obama campaign case where in the end things pull together more. 
 

Offline eBadger

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #211 on: October 01, 2015, 06:47:15 PM »
Cause he shouldn't be able to make it in the end, anyway.  It's all popcorn and "Hey look, seems like they really do mean at least some of this shit?  Hmm, now where do you suppose that comes from?" until then.

I hope you're right.  I fear the potential of a highly motivated far right minority overcoming an apathetic left, which is what I see currently developing. 

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #212 on: October 01, 2015, 07:30:38 PM »
I hope you're right.  I fear the potential of a highly motivated far right minority overcoming an apathetic left, which is what I see currently developing.

Are you so sure about that 'apathetic left'?  I realize that mainstream media (owned by whom?  Oh yeah, right.) has been studiously focusing on Clinton and ignoring Sanders, but have you seen the crowds that have turned out for him?   There is a grassroots group that has gathered over 100,000 RSVPs to rally in D.C.  (Currently working out the logistics with the Park service and all that, as I'm told.)  He is the first candidate to have amassed one million individual donations. (Source)

Doesn't seem apathetic to me.

Online Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #213 on: October 02, 2015, 01:17:37 AM »
He is the first candidate to have amassed one million individual donations. (Source)
And don't be deceived by that article when it states:
Quote
But with an average contribution of less than $25, he's still raised far less than Hillary Clinton.

Granted, the total amounts raised by both campaigns still differ vastly (Clinton 75, Sanders 40), but right now Sanders is pulling in the small donations even faster than Obama did in his best days. According to the Washington Post, Clinton raised $28 million during the third quarter of this year, Sanders $26 million.

He may never match Clinton completely in fundraising, but right now, Sander's fundraising certainly has what is so often mentioned during presidential races - momentum.

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #214 on: October 02, 2015, 02:20:35 AM »
One other thing to consider is that no matter how much money a corporation/SuperPAC/Wall Street tycoon donates, it's still one vote per human being.  One million 'small money' donors is one million people who want to vote for someone.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #215 on: October 02, 2015, 11:01:02 AM »
Are you so sure about that 'apathetic left'?

I certainly hope I'm wrong, and Hillary develops some charisma and a platform or Bernie solidifies from the socialist fringe, but no, a million small donations/votes doesn't really seem momentous to me. 

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #216 on: October 02, 2015, 11:30:00 AM »


This is back in July, in Arizona (a state that usually votes Republican).  Eleven thousand people showed up to see Bernie in Phoenix.  It was called the biggest campaign crowd of the 2016 elections at that time.  Not 'of Sanders' campaign', of the elections.



This was August 5th, at the L.A. Memorial Sports Arena.  The venue was filled to capacity, and there were overflow crowds watching on screens outside.  Attendance for this one event was estimated at 27,500.



A few days later, at the Moda Center Basketball Arena - they ended up moving it there instead of using Veterans Memorial Coliseum - 28,000 people.  19,000 in the arena, 9000 in overflow sites.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #217 on: October 02, 2015, 12:16:06 PM »
I think both Sanders and Trump break the mold.  A lot of the "traditional" or "accepted" way of thinking about Presidential campaigns just do not apply to them. 

That's why the pundits keep getting caught flatfooted over and over and over.  A few have adjusted.  Most keep trying to press Sanders/Trump back into the mold:  e.g., the constant babble about how neither can win a "real" election or they will "flame out."  For some of these people, that's because that is all they know.  For others, it is because they are pursuing an agenda (i.e., they want to take down Trump/Sanders).

But with how readily and quickly dense information can be spread today--and how easy it is for ordinary folks, who do not have control over television/radio, to communicate to yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge numbers of people--I wouldn't be surprised if Trump or Sanders turns the world on its ear.


Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #218 on: October 02, 2015, 01:13:21 PM »
Quote from: Cycle
... But with how readily and quickly dense information can be spread today--and how easy it is for ordinary folks, who do not have control over television/radio, to communicate to yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge numbers of people--I wouldn't be surprised if Trump or Sanders turns the world on its ear.

      Well I don't follow much television or radio lately -- If anything, I glimpse an occasional mention of what they might be covering according to what people in online arms of the media (print or otherwise) have to say about it. 

       This sort of thing gets batted around a lot too, though: Who are "ordinary people" and what do they want and/or expect?  Do enough ordinary people take it for granted that only big money, establishment candidates win?  Do enough ordinary people really want the sorts of things Trump's rhetoric might suggest?  Do enough ordinary people listen to what Sanders actually says, or do many think he's just popcorn for being different too?  Are ordinary people even thinking all that hard about the campaign, yet at this point??

       Looking more at national demographics, I don't think the sorts that would vote for Trump are all that ordinary -- although I worry about whether they're disproportionately strong after bursts of gerrymandering with a Republican-controlled Congress and Republican strength (to some degree) more at the state level generally the past few years.  I mean, even allowing for a fraction of working class Black and Latinos to vote more "family values" in spite of their apparent economic difference with what both Trump and the Republicans generally have actually stood for, and a few women maybe being willing to ignore the acidic talk about controlling their bodies and getting them out of the news if they ask too many questions...  There's still an awful lot of people I think, for Trump to work against in absolute numbers.  The only question is how they're divided, between districting (perhaps some voter ID laws and funding issues targeting them too, similar) and some distracting competition and general campaign weariness/frustrations over the next year.

       Sanders has more the opposite problem -- building recognition and getting past the idea that the system is too rigged for anyone with his sort of platform to actually succeed.  He should have a more natural base on economic issues alone -- which for lack of something like a major war effort, has often been a very large factor.  But it's also hard to conceive there won't be some bizarre, distorting attack ads (if not blatant fabrications that just keep repeating bs more along the "not a citizen" insinuation lines) and efforts at fomenting scandal -- that's one pattern the Republicans have not let up on the last few runs I can recall.  I don't know that much about the "campaign burnout" model:  Arguably it applied for Clinton more last time around than it did for Obama.  But there certainly are some regular tests yet to be played out.
 

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #219 on: October 02, 2015, 01:27:10 PM »
Who are "ordinary people" and what do they want and/or expect? 

You misread my statement.  By "ordinary people" I was referring to folks who "do not control television/radio."

ordinary folks, who do not have control over television/radio, to communicate to yuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge numbers of people

Not that the rest of what you said isn't interesting, but that wasn't what I was getting at when I used the term.


Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #220 on: October 02, 2015, 01:40:52 PM »
You misread my statement.  By "ordinary people" I was referring to folks who "do not control television/radio."

      Yes, I did see that part.  But you seem to be defining them by what they don't have, rather than saying precisely what you think they are for, how the processes they are inside work, or whatever they might choose to positively do or move toward.  You did appear to contrast the "ordinary" folk with media people whose message appears to include, these two candidates must flame out before the end.  So I was trying to imagine how likely it might be that in fact, that would happen based on what I know about the demographics and the voting process.  Or at least under what conditions.  Which I'd go so far as to assume that the voting system and what campaigns we do have (whether strong media OR weak media driven model), they are in fact, still processing mostly those people who don't control the mass media message. 

      How might things play out so that such people would indeed decide to stand by Sanders or find enough votes to elect Trump, if it's so eminently possible for Trump or Sanders to pull a coup and win despite the media's brand of conventional wisdom?  That is what I was trying to speculate about.  I don't know, perhaps you have another way of imagining it or you didn't want to fill that in at all.  But I don't see it being a world away to wonder.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #221 on: October 02, 2015, 01:54:59 PM »
      Yes, I did see that part.  But you seem to be defining them by what they don't have, rather than saying precisely what you think they are for, how the processes they are inside work, or whatever they might choose to positively do or move toward. 

No, no.  I was literally only thinking of "ordinary people" as those who do not own/control television/newspapers.  Nothing more.  It's just a phrase.  Not an attack or judgment or whatever.

If you want to pontificate on something, fine.  But don't try to make me the embodiment of your enemy/whatever cause you want to rail against.  Seriously, I'll have to block you if you do it again.


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #222 on: October 02, 2015, 01:57:26 PM »
One thing that both the Sanders and Trump campaigns have over the rest of the field is an enthusiastic embrace of social media.  Bernie has live-streamed rallies (I went to a viewing here in PA).  Trump has a 'thriving' Twitter account.  This gets their messages to the voting base without the filters of the mass media.  This is also probably what scares the mass media the most about them both - there's no fancy editing to fit the party line.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #223 on: October 02, 2015, 08:21:45 PM »
Bush 3.0's take on the Oregon mass murder:

Quote
"Look stuff happens, there's always a crisis and the impulse is always to do something and it's not always the right thing to do," Bush said at the Conservative Leadership Project in Greenville, South Carolina.

Yeah.  Stuff happens.  Chill people.  I mean, heck, his brother caused the death of a couple hundred thousand Iraqis lying about weapons of mass destruction and he still got to be president.  So what's the big deal, right?


Online kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Big Thread For the USA 2016 Presidential Candidates
« Reply #224 on: October 02, 2015, 08:42:13 PM »
No, no.  I was literally only thinking of "ordinary people" as those who do not own/control television/newspapers.  Nothing more.  It's just a phrase.  Not an attack or judgment or whatever.
       Did I say you had made an attack or judgment?  Or did I say I was trying to make one myself??  You're losing me here, but on both counts:  I really don't think so.  And I certainly wasn't trying to make  one on you.  It's a bit like the sort of discussion GV has been tossing in the immigration thread.  Really, if I actually have that much of an objection to something that I think it's simply dangerous to believe stuff (or racist, or whatever fiery word is being attributed to me that I never even had in mind that day), then I'll probably air the adjective out and I'll at least try to say something about why.  But this one?  "Attack"?  Huh?? 

       There seem to be so many times in here when people don't want to hear anything at all about anything they'v'e said, unless it comes with a direct quote and claims about which words the OP said that will be picked at how exactly, and then there's this initial presumption that "debate" being possible, means it's only about setting up a conflict.  It's also sometimes getting hard in here to venture much of an opinion about the desirability or sellability of candidate policies at all, without someone shouting 'uncalled for attack!' out of the blue...  But really, that was not the kind of discussion I was trying to have.  So sorry.  It doesn't all have to be some personal vendetta, you know?

Quote
If you want to pontificate on something, fine.  But don't try to make me the embodiment of your enemy/whatever cause you want to rail against.  Seriously, I'll have to block you if you do it again.
       I was not "railing" against anything.  Essentially, what I was trying to do was analyze:  Let's assume you're quite correct and in some way, Trump and Sanders feed audiences who connect more by word of mouth.  Okay, then how do such audiences, within the bounds of what is still an election cycle with rules and (I think still to a fairly significant extent, no matter who drives them) plenty of messages likely going around about character, policy claims and the like, make decisions to support people or not?  How the heck is that an invective against you?  You're surely imagining something I was not. 

       I imagine a lot of women and Latinos would have good reasons NOT to support Trump.  (And not that it really matters for this, but just because you probably want some "personal" position given that you're already pretty much insisting I must immediately be read as for or against you here somehow or other: Personallly, I hope they don't support him.  I hope Trump fails utterly, if that wasn't already clear from stuff I posted earlier.)  So I wondered, how might you then be correct that just by word of mouth or whatever positive action not being beholden to the mainstream media results in people actually going through a process of...  How might Trump be able to stay afloat and win -- that is, because you said he might shirk all expectations?  And conversely, how might Sanders or Trump run into trouble over time and with the various demographics?

        Cycle, I'm sorry if it annoys you that I didn't somehow go on about very precisely what you wanted to emphasize for whatever arbitrary length of time.  And you are of course welcome to block whoever you feel like.  But I really feel like you're looking for some huge fight that I never intended.  If it bothers you so much that people don't quote block and recycle exactly whatever particular detail you wanted, then by all means do as you will.  But I honestly don't see what in the world you are so upset about. 

       I also don't see what is especially "pompous" (pontificate you say?!) about asking how likely it would be that various groups of people would actually vote for a candidate, over the course of an election cycle which still does have a year to go, in a thread all about the prospects of presidential candidates.  Yes even given that not all candidates or their consituencies are equally beholden to mass media narratives.  Perhaps you're upset that I pointed out you aren't the first to talk about what "ordinary" people might or might not do -- the media does it, the campaigns do it all the time?  Well, I'm only doing the same thing and trying to say a little bit more about why I guess what they might actually do. 

     And I've tried to allow that you might be basically right on the idea that Sanders and Trump are at least in some ways a bit of new breed, but you didn't really say however that might change (just for example) how many Latinos would probably vote for Trump, or how people might see the word "socialist" applied to Sanders or whatever really over the course of a campaign.  So I was saying sure you may be right on some angle about the media etc., but then what:  How could that result in Trump winning, or Sanders for that matter?  How might the demographics play out?  Would it be much different because of that and how, I'm trying to imagine?  Cause this is how I imagine them playing out (more or less, maybe, with a year still to go - it's guesswork).  That's all really.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2015, 09:01:04 PM by kylie »