Trump has yet to crack 50% in any state so far

[hawkifann]

Put another way, if you are just against someone vs being for someone then your field of candidates is incredibly weak.

Simply being AGAINST someone doesn't win elections. Rubio is a bad candidate for POTUS bc outside of his one liners he has very little substance or record to back himself up as a viable candidate. Ted is a bad candidate bc he frightens everyone with his Jesus talk (yes it is frightening). John K is probably a good candidate but it is the wrong point in history for someone like him.

Trump has tapped into the American soul of discontent (so has Bernie in a similar but slightly different way) now add in his ability to manipulate the media and mix it with his marketing/branding skills and you have a guy that is riding that wave to the nomination.

I don't blame Trump as he is just a symptom of the environment that the establishment of the R and D parties created the past 20 years. Everyone realizes that party politics is ruining our country, now American's are voting against the system...you may not like the candidate but good for them in doing so.

I pretty much agree with all of this, although I may like Rubio more than you do. I think Kasich, Christie and Bush also could have been solid, viable candidates under different sets of circumstances, but clearly those actually participating in the GOP process right now aren't looking for that kind of candidate. I've pined for a good, solid outsider for a long time. I actually voted Perot in 1992, but I just wish it was someone other than Trump, who I find to be entertaining in a reality show sense, but a probably disaster as POTUS.

No matter how all of this turns out, it's pretty clear that the GOP is going to go back to the drawing board or else an upstart party would have to see a window here to pop up and make some noise.

 

[unIowa]

I pretty much agree with all of this, although I may like Rubio more than you do. I think Kasich, Christie and Bush also could have been solid, viable candidates under different sets of circumstances, but clearly those actually participating in the GOP process right now aren't looking for that kind of candidate. I've pined for a good, solid outsider for a long time. I actually voted Perot in 1992, but I just wish it was someone other than Trump, who I find to be entertaining in a reality show sense, but a probably disaster as POTUS.

No matter how all of this turns out, it's pretty clear that the GOP is going to go back to the drawing board or else an upstart party would have to see a window here to pop up and make some noise.

Not sure why a Democratic Nationalist and Democratic Socialist party wouldn't pop-up after November...the environment is there to support it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Trump has tapped into the American soul of discontent (so has Bernie in a similar but slightly different way)....

PLEASE!

I'm hearing this all over the place. Especially from Hillary supporters - where linking Bernie and Trump seems intended to scare Dems away from Bernie and deflect attention away from his strong, sensible policy positions.

I'm also hearing this from Trump supporters - who seem to hope that linking Trump with Bernie and his strong, sensible policy positions may somehow create the illusion that Trump also has strong, sensible policy positions.

In short, there is nothing SIMILAR or only slightly different when comparing Trump and Bernie. Yes, they both tap discontent with our broken system. But that's where it ends. They tap that discontent and respond to it in VERY DIFFERENT ways.

 

[unIowa]

PLEASE!

I'm hearing this all over the place. Especially from Hillary supporters - where linking Bernie and Trump seems intended to scare Dems away from Bernie and deflect attention away from his strong, sensible policy positions.

I'm also hearing this from Trump supporters - who seem to hope that linking Trump with Bernie and his strong, sensible policy positions may somehow create the illusion that Trump also has strong, sensible policy positions.

In short, there is nothing SIMILAR or only slightly different when comparing Trump and Bernie. Yes, they both tap discontent with our broken system. But that's where it ends. They tap that discontent and respond to it in VERY DIFFERENT ways.

But that is the driving force behind their campaign momentum. You can't deny it bc it is true.

Also go take a look at the Trump thread I started on Tax plus Trade...you will have good input.

 

[hawkifann]

Yeah but, unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have enough of those sensible centrist positions. Even while accepting the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, he says he would repeal Obamacare.

He acknowledges that climate change is real, but doesn't want to do much about it because it might hurt the economy.

On other issues he's anti-union, anti-abortion, anti-collective bargaining, anti-gay marriage, has an odd position on immigration, wants US ground troops against ISIS, is pro-TPP, opposes aid to Syrian refugees, wants to cut education spending, kowtows to the NRA, and so on.

Those are mostly fine with the GOP base. Not so much with centrists.

Yes, but as we've seen with countless political candidates in the past, there are a lot of issues in your comments where a candidate can say a lot of things to score points with the base and never really take any serious action on. SCOTUS has spoken on abortion and gay marriage and I don't think either of those issues are ever going to move back in the other direction (but it sure does give 2 parties something to pretend to yell about during election cycles). Anti-union/anti-collective bargaining isn't something a POTUS is really going to spend a lot of time on and even if he gave it lip service, he'd have to have a Congress ready to do something. This also applies to TPP and education spending.

No candidate is really ever 100% what anyone wants. I'm a centrist -- a registered Independent who leans right a little more than I lean left. I've always had to pick which general platform I wish to support because neither the GOP nor Dem candidate ever really fully aligns with my view.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Put another way, if you are just against someone vs being for someone then your field of candidates is incredibly weak.

Simply being AGAINST someone doesn't win elections. Rubio is a bad candidate for POTUS bc outside of his one liners he has very little substance or record to back himself up as a viable candidate. Ted is a bad candidate bc he frightens everyone with his Jesus talk (yes it is frightening). John K is probably a good candidate but it is the wrong point in history for someone like him.

Trump has tapped into the American soul of discontent (so has Bernie in a similar but slightly different way) now add in his ability to manipulate the media and mix it with his marketing/branding skills and you have a guy that is riding that wave to the nomination.

I don't blame Trump as he is just a symptom of the environment that the establishment of the R and D parties created the past 20 years. Everyone realizes that party politics is ruining our country, now American's are voting against the system...you may not like the candidate but good for them in doing so.

I agree with the rest of this.

 

[hawkifann]

Not sure why a Democratic Nationalist and Democratic Socialist party wouldn't pop-up after November...the environment is there to support it.

If it did and actually took a foothold, then you'd probably see the moderate Republicans jump to what would probably be a more centrist Democratic party, to give us something more like a left, a right and a middle option....but I don't think it's actually going to happen. "Socialist", even with Bernie's success, still has a lot of baggage associated with it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

But that is the driving force behind their campaign momentum. You can't deny it bc it is true.

Also go take a look at the Trump thread I started on Tax plus Trade...you will have good input.

Yeah, but that's like saying we are similar or slightly different about what to do about a run-down house when one of us wants to fix it and the other wants to burn it down.

WHAT they stand for is important. That they are both tapping discontent is worth noting, but not worth basing support on or equating them on.

 

[hawkifann]

PLEASE!

I'm hearing this all over the place. Especially from Hillary supporters - where linking Bernie and Trump seems intended to scare Dems away from Bernie and deflect attention away from his strong, sensible policy positions.

I'm also hearing this from Trump supporters - who seem to hope that linking Trump with Bernie and his strong, sensible policy positions may somehow create the illusion that Trump also has strong, sensible policy positions.

In short, there is nothing SIMILAR or only slightly different when comparing Trump and Bernie. Yes, they both tap discontent with our broken system. But that's where it ends. They tap that discontent and respond to it in VERY DIFFERENT ways.

The similarity is that there's a pretty significant level of general discontent with what's been established as the norm for each party. There are a lot of people out there supporting Sanders that want the Dems to move left and clearly a group within the GOP that likes that Trump isn't the typical politician.

Apart from that, they're obviously very different candidates. Trump has clearly been shown that he'll change positions on issues as it suits him and then switch back when it suits. him (though he's held few on a very few things). He doesn't give a lot of specifics and you hear a lot of very general campaign language around #winning and greatness. Bernie, on the other hand, is very consistent and has given a lot of substance. I disagree with Bernie on a LOT of things, but I can certainly respect his firm beliefs and principles.

 

[hawkifann]

Yeah, but that's like saying we are similar or slightly different about what to do about a run-down house when one of us wants to fix it and the other wants to burn it down.

WHAT they stand for is important. That they are both tapping discontent is worth noting, but not worth basing support on or equating them on.

I really think it's less about truly equating Trump and Sanders and more about equating the parties and the parties' relative inability to keep constituents happy.

 

[Jan Itor]

Yeah but, unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have enough of those sensible centrist positions. Even while accepting the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, he says he would repeal Obamacare.

He acknowledges that climate change is real, but doesn't want to do much about it because it might hurt the economy.

On other issues he's anti-union, anti-abortion, anti-collective bargaining, anti-gay marriage, has an odd position on immigration, wants US ground troops against ISIS, is pro-TPP, opposes aid to Syrian refugees, wants to cut education spending, kowtows to the NRA, and so on.

Those are mostly fine with the GOP base. Not so much with centrists.

He believes marriage is between one man and one woman, but he's not our to ban same sex couples from getting married. He's also attended a same sex couple's wedding. Has Obama? Has Hillary?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That is certainly a potential outcome. The question we all have to ask ourselves is would that be a better outcome than Trump actually becoming POTUS?

Easy answer: ASOLUTELY!

Especially if The Bernie Sanders - Elizabeth Warren ticket sweeps a bunch of progressives into Congress on their way to victory.

Of course the answer for most probably depends on which alternative candidate the Oligarchs pick to carry the GOP standard.

Does anyone have any inside info on who the Kochtopus really wants? Would they try to rehabilitate Walker?

Paul Ryan? Mittens?

One of the Kochs ran for president in the past. Perhaps the other wants a turn.

 

[The Tradition]

PLEASE!

I'm hearing this all over the place. Especially from Hillary supporters - where linking Bernie and Trump seems intended to scare Dems away from Bernie and deflect attention away from his strong, sensible policy positions.

I'm also hearing this from Trump supporters - who seem to hope that linking Trump with Bernie and his strong, sensible policy positions may somehow create the illusion that Trump also has strong, sensible policy positions.

In short, there is nothing SIMILAR or only slightly different when comparing Trump and Bernie. Yes, they both tap discontent with our broken system. But that's where it ends. They tap that discontent and respond to it in VERY DIFFERENT ways.

There's nothing "sensible" about Bernie's positions. "Make Wall Street Pay" is as stupid as saying Mexico is gonna pay for the wall.

They're both wackos.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I really think it's less about truly equating Trump and Sanders and more about equating the parties and the parties' relative inability to keep constituents happy.

Sure, reasonable people can keep this straight. But what I'm objecting to is this constant pairing. To the average lemming, that's sometimes all it takes.

 

[Huey Grey]

It may wind up similar, but you can't compare all of March in 2012 to the first 8 days of March in 2016 and say that March 2012 had more. I will say that I don't remember all three of them polling that high but as someone pointed out earlier, it had already become clear that Romney was going to win before Super Tuesday. This year, we don't have any clear idea yet and I think a brokered convention is probably likely.

Trump does (fortunately) have a much lower ceiling than pretty much any other lead candidate in the recent past.

I wasn't comparing all of March 2012. I only compared it up until March 6.

So in other words:

• In 2012, we saw states split votes to at least 20% for 3 candidates 7 times the first 6 days of March
• But in 2016, we saw states split votes to at least 20% for 3 candidates 5 times the first 8 days of March.