State of the 2016 Race

[IMPress Polly]

I haven't commented on the presidential race in a while and it's really started to take shape in the interim. What follows is simply a collection of my observations.

On the Democratic Side:

The race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is basically over. There are lots of ways of illustrating this fact, among which are the following:

-Since the debate on October 13th, half the Democratic candidates -- Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, and Lawrence Lessig -- have dropped out of the race, and heavy hitter Vice President Joe Biden has surprisingly decided against running.

-Mrs. Clinton's appearance at the Benghazi Committee show trial in late October served to put her non-scandals to rest for all serious voters and all serious people. For example, it served not as a negative, but as her biggest fundraising day of the whole campaign so far (and they issue a special fundraising call for that day; it happened spontaneously). Further evidence includes the fact that a new batch of Clinton emails from her time as Secretary of State have since been released and the subject failed to garner the attention of the press this time around (aside from, of course, Fox News). Thus her biggest problem has become not only a non-problem, but actually a political advantage in the sense that she's now able to successfully cast the whole previous controversy as a case of political persecution by the Republicans (which is exactly what it always was, as I've been uniquely saying right from the beginning).

While Bernie Sanders made some gains among African American voters over the summer, Hillary has since regained nearly all of them (e.b. Bernie is down from 14% of the black vote in August to 4% today) while retaining nearly all Latinos and leading among female voters (who compose 54% of the Democratic electorate) by a margin of roughly 4 to 1. Furthermore, with Biden opting against a presidential bid, Wall Street now is now unreservedly consolidating its own financial support around one Democrat in Clinton, and meanwhile organized labor is also formally getting on board with the Clinton campaign at a pretty fast clip now. These last two points will really cement a huge financial advantage for Clinton going into the primaries in terms of prospects for things like vote-flipping ad buys and more. Sanders may have the support of young working class white male Democratic voters, but frankly who cares when Clinton only has everyone else? At this point, the demographic and financial factors really are looking prohibitive for Bernie.

-To cement the above point in your mind, the most recent polling data shows Clinton now enjoying twice Sanders' level of support nationally (she leads him 62% to 31% according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal survey released yesterday, and said poll really represents the gold standard for accuracy) and also by a double-digit margin in every state outside of Sanders' native New England. She has furthermore consolidated all manner of demographic advantages.

This said, I will continue to support Bernie Sanders for the duration of the nominating contest, but with the realization that mine will be a protest vote aimed at keeping up the pressure on Mrs. Clinton to continue coming out with more left wing policy positions rather than one rooted in the illusion that my preferred candidate can actually win the nomination. Let it be said though, in case I hadn't made this clear before, that I WILL support Hillary Clinton during the general election contest for lots of different reasons. She may not be my first choice, but based on the platform she's currently running on, she'll do in a pinch. I wouldn't have voted for Biden (too conservative for me), but I'll definitely vote for her.

On the Republican Side:

The Republican race is starting to take greater shape as well at this point. It may not appear so on the surface level, but let me break it down for you:

The Republican presidential race pretty invariably winds up as a contest between the semi-official candidates of three party factions: the corporatists (who almost always win), the religious conservatives, and the libertarians. What's unique about this year's contest is that, interestingly, the libertarian faction seems to have vanished and been replaced by a new, scarier type of Republican: the fascist wing. (We might alternately call it the ultra-nationalist wing or the statist wing if we're looking to be more polite, but I have no interest in failing to associate this ideology with its awful heritage.) Here's how it breaks down:

The Fascist Wing: Donald Trump. These are basically working class voters and ex-libertarians.

The Religious Conservative Wing: Ben Carson. These are more middle class voters.

The Corporatist Wing: Marco Rubio. These are basically capitalist class voters.

You might say "What about Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, etc.?" What about them? It's obvious that none of them will win the nomination. The only thing about those candidates that's worth noting is to which of the first three candidates mentioned above their respective supporters will naturally tend to defect once they inevitably drop out. Here's how that breaks down:

Ted Cruz supporters --> Trump

Mike Huckabee supporters --> Carson

Everyone else's supporters --> Rubio

See what I mean? Consolidating the votes that way, along the lines they'll likely go, you wind up with a close three-way race with each of those candidates garnering around one-third of the Republican vote. The question then becomes which of those three candidates will win. The only answer to that question I have right now is that it won't be Carson. Why not, you ask? Because, unlike Trump and Rubio, he'll not have the money. Trump and Rubio will have the money for those key last minute ads that flip votes like pancakes. The next question THEN is where Carson supporters will go when HE eventually drops out (though it may be well into the primaries by the time he finally does). Most Carson supporters say they will never vote for Trump, so I suspect they'll defect to Rubio. But the question is: can Rubio consolidate the corporatist wing of his party around him quickly enough for that to matter? It remains an open question.

General Election Prospects:

The winner of the general election hinges on whom the Republicans nominate. If they nominate Trump, I predict a Clinton victory. If they nominate Rubio, I predict a Rubio victory. Choose wisely Republicans. ...No actually, choose foolishly because I want Clinton to win!

[Common]

I agree that recent events has Hillary cemented as the democrat Nominee. The benghazi committe backfired and shot her right to the top.

Republican Side, I disagree with you somewhat Polly. I believe its a 3 way race still with a sleeper.

I believe its Trump, Rubion and Cruz, I think cruz is in sleeper mode collecting tons of cash from very rich donors and soon he will break out and flood everywhere with ads. I could be wrong. Im not saying hes going to win but I believe hes still very much a laid back player.

I also think the opposite if Trump wins hillary will have her toughtest time. If Rubio wins he will have his dignity shredded in the general all his failings will come to light that are being shoved under the rug at this point.

I believe the GOP has a tough way to go for these reasons.

They are not getting the hispanic vote no matter who wins the nomination, how that bush is out of the picture.
They are not getting the majority of women votes
They are not getting the black vote.
At this minute they are behind in independent voters who MAKE OR BREAK ELECTIONS, they are the most important voting block.

For all the noise the right makes on this forum and all the insults they toss around daily, thats just all procrastination based on HOT AIR. If some of them read different outlets they would see they are not in the great position they believe. Nor have they diminished hillary with 4 yrs of attacks to the point shes a guaranteed loss.

Anything can happen. REMEMBER ROMNEY ?????

[Chris]

The Fascist Wing: Donald Trump. These are basically working class voters and ex-libertarians.

LOL. Polly, you're getting lazy. And not just in the misuse of fascist but to lump Trump with working class.

[Common]

Polly strongly dislikes trump and that term might be too gentle

[zelmo1234]

I agree that recent events has Hillary cemented as the democrat Nominee. The benghazi committe backfired and shot her right to the top.

Republican Side, I disagree with you somewhat Polly. I believe its a 3 way race still with a sleeper.

I believe its Trump, Rubion and Cruz, I think cruz is in sleeper mode collecting tons of cash from very rich donors and soon he will break out and flood everywhere with ads. I could be wrong. Im not saying hes going to win but I believe hes still very much a laid back player.

I also think the opposite if Trump wins hillary will have her toughtest time. If Rubio wins he will have his dignity shredded in the general all his failings will come to light that are being shoved under the rug at this point.

I believe the GOP has a tough way to go for these reasons.

They are not getting the hispanic vote no matter who wins the nomination, how that bush is out of the picture.
They are not getting the majority of women votes
They are not getting the black vote.
At this minute they are behind in independent voters who MAKE OR BREAK ELECTIONS, they are the most important voting block.

For all the noise the right makes on this forum and all the insults they toss around daily, thats just all procrastination based on HOT AIR. If some of them read different outlets they would see they are not in the great position they believe. Nor have they diminished hillary with 4 yrs of attacks to the point shes a guaranteed loss.

Anything can happen. REMEMBER ROMNEY ?????

I think that it will come down to Rubio and Cruz and I think that may very well be the ticket to unite the party.

And If there is a Hispanic on the ticket it will swing the Hispanic vote. Just as Hillary will swing some of the women's vote.

It is likely to come down to the state of the Union at the time. The Democrats need to see something good happening in the economy, if not it will likely be a late Republican surge.

Rubio while not great will be acceptable to the conservative wing of the party.

The 2 wild cards are Jim Web and Donald Trump, both could run as an independent and through the party to the other side.

I think that Hillary will pick Webb as the VP to prevent that from happening on the democratic side

[nic34]

Flirting with a Fascist: Trump’s Success Forces GOP to Look into Abyss

The problem is that Donald Trump, in every way that matters, is a fascist. He reminds one of Mussolini- a corporatist buffoon with a huge ego and a mean streak. He is a first rate demagogue. His brand of racial politics is just vague enough to be popular with enough people to earn him a serious following, but specific enough for us to know the atrocities this type of talk can lead to. He has essentially called for an ethnic cleansing campaign to eradicate “illegals” from the U.S., the targets of which would surely not be the Swedish student who over stays her visa. This mass deportation campaign would target the tens of millions of Latin American families and workers that are currently in the US without papers. The recent Trump motivated attack in Boston on a homeless man, thought by the perpetrators to be an immigrant, is an indication that the “passion” that he inspires in the Brown Shirt contingent of his constituency is as unpredictable as it is potentially vicious.


The fact that Trump doesn’t appear to have any real fidelity to specific policies is another clue. He has flipped on everything from abortion to single-payer health care and doesn’t even pretend to have any coherent approach to governing beyond loosely identifying himself as a conservative.

Fascists are not ideologues. They don’t hawk position papers or political philosophies. They are the supreme rulers of political cults. And like all cults the supreme leader is sustained by his loyal followers, who refuse to question his authority and turn on anyone who dares to criticize him.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/22/flirting-fascist-trumps-success-forces-gop-look-abyss

[suds00]

i'm looking for a viable third party candidate.

[Common]

I think that it will come down to Rubio and Cruz and I think that may very well be the ticket to unite the party.

And If there is a Hispanic on the ticket it will swing the Hispanic vote. Just as Hillary will swing some of the women's vote.

It is likely to come down to the state of the Union at the time. The Democrats need to see something good happening in the economy, if not it will likely be a late Republican surge.

Rubio while not great will be acceptable to the conservative wing of the party.

The 2 wild cards are Jim Web and Donald Trump, both could run as an independent and through the party to the other side.

I think that Hillary will pick Webb as the VP to prevent that from happening on the democratic side


No Rubio nor Cruz will swing the hispanic vote, especially cruz. I doubt either webb or trump will run as independents. Trump said he would not and if he did even the other billionaires would give him the cold shoulder.

Zelmo I think you are underestimating americas chill towards the right since the last election. I know you wont believe this but people especially independent voters take notice of votes and the republican party has consistently voted against anything for the people and voted for everything for the 2% and corporations. You need to read more.
This is play time, it gets real when the two nominees are chosen.

[Common]

Flirting with a Fascist: Trump’s Success Forces GOP to Look into Abyss

The problem is that Donald Trump, in every way that matters, is a fascist. He reminds one of Mussolini- a corporatist buffoon with a huge ego and a mean streak. He is a first rate demagogue. His brand of racial politics is just vague enough to be popular with enough people to earn him a serious following, but specific enough for us to know the atrocities this type of talk can lead to. He has essentially called for an ethnic cleansing campaign to eradicate “illegals” from the U.S., the targets of which would surely not be the Swedish student who over stays her visa. This mass deportation campaign would target the tens of millions of Latin American families and workers that are currently in the US without papers. The recent Trump motivated attack in Boston on a homeless man, thought by the perpetrators to be an immigrant, is an indication that the “passion” that he inspires in the Brown Shirt contingent of his constituency is as unpredictable as it is potentially vicious.


The fact that Trump doesn’t appear to have any real fidelity to specific policies is another clue. He has flipped on everything from abortion to single-payer health care and doesn’t even pretend to have any coherent approach to governing beyond loosely identifying himself as a conservative.

Fascists are not ideologues. They don’t hawk position papers or political philosophies. They are the supreme rulers of political cults. And like all cults the supreme leader is sustained by his loyal followers, who refuse to question his authority and turn on anyone who dares to criticize him.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/22/flirting-fascist-trumps-success-forces-gop-look-abyss


I think thats whats appealing about trump to the people that support him. Hes not down the line republican agenda

[Common Sense]

LOL. Polly, you're getting lazy. And not just in the misuse of fascist but to lump Trump with working class.

Trump has a lot of popularity among the working class.

[Common]

i'm looking for a viable third party candidate.

You will be looking and looking and looking for eternity

[Common]

Trump has a lot of popularity among the working class.

Thats his strength

[Mister D]

:facepalm:

"Corporatist" again...this is idiotic on two levels: 1) that's simply not what corporatist means and 2) even if we want to assign the term an entirely new and vague meaning (something along the lines of 'in the pocket of big business') it would describe virtually every major politician in the United States.

[Mister D]

Why does the radical left define itself in opposition to apparitions?

[Green Arrow]

Why does the radical left define itself in opposition to apparitions?

To be fair, both partisan sides in the U.S. define themselves in opposition to apparitions.

Why? That's easy to answer: they are vapid and shallow and have no real principles to stand on. They have no identity of their own, so they exist only as opposition to The Other.

[Mister D]

To be fair, both partisan sides in the U.S. define themselves in opposition to apparitions.

Why? That's easy to answer: they are vapid and shallow and have no real principles to stand on. They have no identity of their own, so they exist only as opposition to The Other.

I'm not really talking about partisans though. I'm talking about committed leftist ideologues. The Other in this case is not real. I think the problem here is that perhaps its leftist ideology that is dated.

[Cletus]

I haven't commented on the presidential race in a while and it's really started to take shape in the interim. What follows is simply a collection of my observations.

On the Democratic Side:

The race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is basically over. There are lots of ways of illustrating this fact, among which are the following:

-Since the debate on October 13th, half the Democratic candidates -- Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, and Lawrence Lessig -- have dropped out of the race, and heavy hitter Vice President Joe Biden has surprisingly decided against running.

-Mrs. Clinton's appearance at the Benghazi Committee show trial in late October served to put her non-scandals to rest for all serious voters and all serious people. For example, it served not as a negative, but as her biggest fundraising day of the whole campaign so far (and they issue a special fundraising call for that day; it happened spontaneously). Further evidence includes the fact that a new batch of Clinton emails from her time as Secretary of State have since been released and the subject failed to garner the attention of the press this time around (aside from, of course, Fox News). Thus her biggest problem has become not only a non-problem, but actually a political advantage in the sense that she's now able to successfully cast the whole previous controversy as a case of political persecution by the Republicans (which is exactly what it always was, as I've been uniquely saying right from the beginning).

While Bernie Sanders made some gains among African American voters over the summer, Hillary has since regained nearly all of them (e.b. Bernie is down from 14% of the black vote in August to 4% today) while retaining nearly all Latinos and leading among female voters (who compose 54% of the Democratic electorate) by a margin of roughly 4 to 1. Furthermore, with Biden opting against a presidential bid, Wall Street now is now unreservedly consolidating its own financial support around one Democrat in Clinton, and meanwhile organized labor is also formally getting on board with the Clinton campaign at a pretty fast clip now. These last two points will really cement a huge financial advantage for Clinton going into the primaries in terms of prospects for things like vote-flipping ad buys and more. Sanders may have the support of young working class white male Democratic voters, but frankly who cares when Clinton only has everyone else? At this point, the demographic and financial factors really are looking prohibitive for Bernie.

-To cement the above point in your mind, the most recent polling data shows Clinton now enjoying twice Sanders' level of support nationally (she leads him 62% to 31% according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal survey released yesterday, and said poll really represents the gold standard for accuracy) and also by a double-digit margin in every state outside of Sanders' native New England. She has furthermore consolidated all manner of demographic advantages.

This said, I will continue to support Bernie Sanders for the duration of the nominating contest, but with the realization that mine will be a protest vote aimed at keeping up the pressure on Mrs. Clinton to continue coming out with more left wing policy positions rather than one rooted in the illusion that my preferred candidate can actually win the nomination. Let it be said though, in case I hadn't made this clear before, that I WILL support Hillary Clinton during the general election contest for lots of different reasons. She may not be my first choice, but based on the platform she's currently running on, she'll do in a pinch. I wouldn't have voted for Biden (too conservative for me), but I'll definitely vote for her.

On the Republican Side:

The Republican race is starting to take greater shape as well at this point. It may not appear so on the surface level, but let me break it down for you:

The Republican presidential race pretty invariably winds up as a contest between the semi-official candidates of three party factions: the corporatists (who almost always win), the religious conservatives, and the libertarians. What's unique about this year's contest is that, interestingly, the libertarian faction seems to have vanished and been replaced by a new, scarier type of Republican: the fascist wing. (We might alternately call it the ultra-nationalist wing or the statist wing if we're looking to be more polite, but I have no interest in failing to associate this ideology with its awful heritage.) Here's how it breaks down:

The Fascist Wing: Donald Trump. These are basically working class voters and ex-libertarians.

The Religious Conservative Wing: Ben Carson. These are more middle class voters.

The Corporatist Wing: Marco Rubio. These are basically capitalist class voters.

You might say "What about Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, etc.?" What about them? It's obvious that none of them will win the nomination. The only thing about those candidates that's worth noting is to which of the first three candidates mentioned above their respective supporters will naturally tend to defect once they inevitably drop out. Here's how that breaks down:

Ted Cruz supporters --> Trump

Mike Huckabee supporters --> Carson

Everyone else's supporters --> Rubio

See what I mean? Consolidating the votes that way, along the lines they'll likely go, you wind up with a close three-way race with each of those candidates garnering around one-third of the Republican vote. The question then becomes which of those three candidates will win. The only answer to that question I have right now is that it won't be Carson. Why not, you ask? Because, unlike Trump and Rubio, he'll not have the money. Trump and Rubio will have the money for those key last minute ads that flip votes like pancakes. The next question THEN is where Carson supporters will go when HE eventually drops out (though it may be well into the primaries by the time he finally does). Most Carson supporters say they will never vote for Trump, so I suspect they'll defect to Rubio. But the question is: can Rubio consolidate the corporatist wing of his party around him quickly enough for that to matter? It remains an open question.

General Election Prospects:

The winner of the general election hinges on whom the Republicans nominate. If they nominate Trump, I predict a Clinton victory. If they nominate Rubio, I predict a Rubio victory. Choose wisely Republicans. ...No actually, choose foolishly because I want Clinton to win!

Do you actually believe any of that tripe?

[Mac-7]

To be fair, both partisan sides in the U.S. define themselves in opposition to apparitions.

Why? That's easy to answer: they are vapid and shallow and have no real principles to stand on. They have no identity of their own, so they exist only as opposition to The Other.


its the phony middle that has no principals and just sits on the sideline waiting for a republican to win that they can criticize.

but if its a dem like obama or hillary they will spend the next four years making sure conservatives are not too mean spirited.

libs make me sick to my stomach

[zelmo1234]

Flirting with a Fascist: Trump’s Success Forces GOP to Look into Abyss

The problem is that Donald Trump, in every way that matters, is a fascist. He reminds one of Mussolini- a corporatist buffoon with a huge ego and a mean streak. He is a first rate demagogue. His brand of racial politics is just vague enough to be popular with enough people to earn him a serious following, but specific enough for us to know the atrocities this type of talk can lead to. He has essentially called for an ethnic cleansing campaign to eradicate “illegals” from the U.S., the targets of which would surely not be the Swedish student who over stays her visa. This mass deportation campaign would target the tens of millions of Latin American families and workers that are currently in the US without papers. The recent Trump motivated attack in Boston on a homeless man, thought by the perpetrators to be an immigrant, is an indication that the “passion” that he inspires in the Brown Shirt contingent of his constituency is as unpredictable as it is potentially vicious.


The fact that Trump doesn’t appear to have any real fidelity to specific policies is another clue. He has flipped on everything from abortion to single-payer health care and doesn’t even pretend to have any coherent approach to governing beyond loosely identifying himself as a conservative.

Fascists are not ideologues. They don’t hawk position papers or political philosophies. They are the supreme rulers of political cults. And like all cults the supreme leader is sustained by his loyal followers, who refuse to question his authority and turn on anyone who dares to criticize him.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/22/flirting-fascist-trumps-success-forces-gop-look-abyss

You know it really would be a terrible choice if we have to choose between Trump the Fascist and Hillary the Communist.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history

If you look at the past of the Clinton family and the ties that they have around the world, the leanings are easy to see

Bill is even on record stating that the people will get used to Communism.

http://godfatherpolitics.com/12723/bill-clinton-says-americans-will-get-use-communism/

So if things stay as they are the choice will be Communism or Fascism

See how that works Liberals Name calling with support goes both ways.

[Peter1469]

Trump is running as a populist. He is not demanding enough government control over our lives to qualify as a fascist.

I don't think that the libertarians disappeared, they are just enamored with the populist for now.

[Carlsen]

Trump is running as a populist. He is not demanding enough government control over our lives to qualify as a fascist.

I don't think that the libertarians disappeared, they are just enamored with the populist for now.


he is rich and girls like him

http://www.hollilla.com/images/a/3/7/a3743c7f784837dd718689b32e60c341_119742.JPEG


.

[Private Pickle]

I haven't commented on the presidential race in a while and it's really started to take shape in the interim. What follows is simply a collection of my observations.

On the Democratic Side:

The race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination is basically over. There are lots of ways of illustrating this fact, among which are the following:

-Since the debate on October 13th, half the Democratic candidates -- Jim Webb, Lincoln Chafee, and Lawrence Lessig -- have dropped out of the race, and heavy hitter Vice President Joe Biden has surprisingly decided against running.

-Mrs. Clinton's appearance at the Benghazi Committee show trial in late October served to put her non-scandals to rest for all serious voters and all serious people. For example, it served not as a negative, but as her biggest fundraising day of the whole campaign so far (and they issue a special fundraising call for that day; it happened spontaneously). Further evidence includes the fact that a new batch of Clinton emails from her time as Secretary of State have since been released and the subject failed to garner the attention of the press this time around (aside from, of course, Fox News). Thus her biggest problem has become not only a non-problem, but actually a political advantage in the sense that she's now able to successfully cast the whole previous controversy as a case of political persecution by the Republicans (which is exactly what it always was, as I've been uniquely saying right from the beginning).

While Bernie Sanders made some gains among African American voters over the summer, Hillary has since regained nearly all of them (e.b. Bernie is down from 14% of the black vote in August to 4% today) while retaining nearly all Latinos and leading among female voters (who compose 54% of the Democratic electorate) by a margin of roughly 4 to 1. Furthermore, with Biden opting against a presidential bid, Wall Street now is now unreservedly consolidating its own financial support around one Democrat in Clinton, and meanwhile organized labor is also formally getting on board with the Clinton campaign at a pretty fast clip now. These last two points will really cement a huge financial advantage for Clinton going into the primaries in terms of prospects for things like vote-flipping ad buys and more. Sanders may have the support of young working class white male Democratic voters, but frankly who cares when Clinton only has everyone else? At this point, the demographic and financial factors really are looking prohibitive for Bernie.

-To cement the above point in your mind, the most recent polling data shows Clinton now enjoying twice Sanders' level of support nationally (she leads him 62% to 31% according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal survey released yesterday, and said poll really represents the gold standard for accuracy) and also by a double-digit margin in every state outside of Sanders' native New England. She has furthermore consolidated all manner of demographic advantages.

This said, I will continue to support Bernie Sanders for the duration of the nominating contest, but with the realization that mine will be a protest vote aimed at keeping up the pressure on Mrs. Clinton to continue coming out with more left wing policy positions rather than one rooted in the illusion that my preferred candidate can actually win the nomination. Let it be said though, in case I hadn't made this clear before, that I WILL support Hillary Clinton during the general election contest for lots of different reasons. She may not be my first choice, but based on the platform she's currently running on, she'll do in a pinch. I wouldn't have voted for Biden (too conservative for me), but I'll definitely vote for her.

On the Republican Side:

The Republican race is starting to take greater shape as well at this point. It may not appear so on the surface level, but let me break it down for you:

The Republican presidential race pretty invariably winds up as a contest between the semi-official candidates of three party factions: the corporatists (who almost always win), the religious conservatives, and the libertarians. What's unique about this year's contest is that, interestingly, the libertarian faction seems to have vanished and been replaced by a new, scarier type of Republican: the fascist wing. (We might alternately call it the ultra-nationalist wing or the statist wing if we're looking to be more polite, but I have no interest in failing to associate this ideology with its awful heritage.) Here's how it breaks down:

The Fascist Wing: Donald Trump. These are basically working class voters and ex-libertarians.

The Religious Conservative Wing: Ben Carson. These are more middle class voters.

The Corporatist Wing: Marco Rubio. These are basically capitalist class voters.

You might say "What about Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, etc.?" What about them? It's obvious that none of them will win the nomination. The only thing about those candidates that's worth noting is to which of the first three candidates mentioned above their respective supporters will naturally tend to defect once they inevitably drop out. Here's how that breaks down:

Ted Cruz supporters --> Trump

Mike Huckabee supporters --> Carson

Everyone else's supporters --> Rubio

See what I mean? Consolidating the votes that way, along the lines they'll likely go, you wind up with a close three-way race with each of those candidates garnering around one-third of the Republican vote. The question then becomes which of those three candidates will win. The only answer to that question I have right now is that it won't be Carson. Why not, you ask? Because, unlike Trump and Rubio, he'll not have the money. Trump and Rubio will have the money for those key last minute ads that flip votes like pancakes. The next question THEN is where Carson supporters will go when HE eventually drops out (though it may be well into the primaries by the time he finally does). Most Carson supporters say they will never vote for Trump, so I suspect they'll defect to Rubio. But the question is: can Rubio consolidate the corporatist wing of his party around him quickly enough for that to matter? It remains an open question.

General Election Prospects:

The winner of the general election hinges on whom the Republicans nominate. If they nominate Trump, I predict a Clinton victory. If they nominate Rubio, I predict a Rubio victory. Choose wisely Republicans. ...No actually, choose foolishly because I want Clinton to win!

So I hate answering point for point so I will focus on who will be nominated.

Clinton will get the nod (thanks to Biden) and rightly so. She has done her due diligence even after losing to Obama some 8 years ago. She has checked the boxes and filled in the4 blanks and as such there is no doubt that she, if President, would fulfill the exact role her party and by extension her supporters (big business) would expect. We get the same for the next 4-8 years.

The GOP is really the interesting thing here. I don't think the GOP has been in this state of change since the Civil Rights movement and before that Lincoln (the creation of the Republican Party). We are truly in a historic place with the GOP and whomever gets the nod will most likely change party politics forever.

My opinion, the only person Hillary can beat would be Trump and only in certain circumstances. If Trump gets the nod and somehow becomes a scholar of both foreign and domestic policy in so much that he can answer the simplest of questions he will win. If we look at Sarah Palin and her appeal we will realize that the American public isn't interested in voting for the best choice rather the choice that best appeals to them. The problem with Palin is that she was a complete and total moron who was unable to comprehend let alone memorize American history, foreign politics and least of all the nuances of economics.

Trump isn't an idiot and if he thinks he can really win, he may just forego his CEOship and put some real effort into understanding the issues. He will make the U.S. his corporation and if he does that he will beat Hillary. Is that a good thing? Meh, time will tell. Do I think he is a fascist? No. I think that's hyperbole. Do I think he is a Nationalist? Yes. Do I think that's a bad thing? Not sure. Depends. I'm a staunch Nationalist so it depends on how he approaches it.

Carson. Carson's faith is the only thing that is hurting him right now. I think that is a shame given the foundations on which this country is based. Carson is a level headed, intelligent individual who will tackle each issue on an individual basis and consult the people he surrounds himself to find the correct course of action. Carson is a Doctor and as such his heed of human life cannot be overlooked. His religion should be secondary to any thought given to his policies...as was Obama. Currently, despite his views on drugs, I still support Carson.

Rubio. Rubio will do the same thing Bush did with some restraint on foreign policy. The problem with Rubio is the same problem with Hillary. Rubio wins....Hillary wins...nothing changes.... That goes for Carson too. I don't think anything will change under Carson...I just think he is the most capable to continue the status quo.

With all that being said... Trump is the only guy that will shake things up. For the better...for the worse...who knows but shit would get real with Trump.

Here is my current stance. If Hillary gets the nod I will vote for anyone who has a chance to beat her. I don't care if it's Rubio, Carson or Trump. Fact is, we aren't in a better place today then we were 8 years ago and Hillary will continue that trend.

[Peter1469]

I have to: fascism v. crony capitalism. Under fascism it is the State's way or the highway; under crony capitalism, the corporations have the power to get what they want out of the State.


Two separate things.

[zelmo1234]

While a lot would have to happen for him to get the nomination I think that the only other Game Changer would be Cruz.

Not that I think that will happen, but spending would be tuff under a Cruz presidency.

[Mac-7]

While a lot would have to happen for him to get the nomination I think that the only other Game Changer would be Cruz.

Not that I think that will happen, but spending would be tuff under a Cruz presidency.

Trump or Cruz would be great.

Both are independent of the middle of the road washington establishment.

[Matty]

Trump or Cruz would be great.

Both are independent of the middle of the road washington establishment.



Trump will not be great. He's an idiot. Did you see his last tirade about Rubio drinking water and sweating?

[zelmo1234]

Trump will not be great. He's an idiot. Did you see his last tirade about Rubio drinking water and sweating?

there are a lot of things that Trump is, but an idiot is not one of them.

He is self funding his run for the nomination and without a lot of press coverage he can't keep up;

Now that the bloom is off the rose of his running he has to say some outrageous stuff to keep the press engaged.

If he is really serious I suspect that as the primaries get close he will lay out a serious plan and attacks will stop.

But to self fund and not go broke he has to stay within a few points of Carson and ahead of Cruz and Rubio

[Matty]

there are a lot of things that Trump is, but an idiot is not one of them.

He is self funding his run for the nomination and without a lot of press coverage he can't keep up;

Now that the bloom is off the rose of his running he has to say some outrageous stuff to keep the press engaged.

If he is really serious I suspect that as the primaries get close he will lay out a serious plan and attacks will stop.

But to self fund and not go broke he has to stay within a few points of Carson and ahead of Cruz and Rubio



To me he is an idiot. Who acts like that? I would never vote for him.

[zelmo1234]

To me he is an idiot. Who acts like that? I would never vote for him.

You don't become the success that he has as an idiot.

Free media coverage is not stupid either. Now If he kept this up all the way to the election I would not likely vote for him either, but I don't see that happening. I admit that I could be wrong.

[Chris]

Flirting with a Fascist: Trump’s Success Forces GOP to Look into Abyss

The problem is that Donald Trump, in every way that matters, is a fascist. He reminds one of Mussolini- a corporatist buffoon with a huge ego and a mean streak. He is a first rate demagogue. His brand of racial politics is just vague enough to be popular with enough people to earn him a serious following, but specific enough for us to know the atrocities this type of talk can lead to. He has essentially called for an ethnic cleansing campaign to eradicate “illegals” from the U.S., the targets of which would surely not be the Swedish student who over stays her visa. This mass deportation campaign would target the tens of millions of Latin American families and workers that are currently in the US without papers. The recent Trump motivated attack in Boston on a homeless man, thought by the perpetrators to be an immigrant, is an indication that the “passion” that he inspires in the Brown Shirt contingent of his constituency is as unpredictable as it is potentially vicious.


The fact that Trump doesn’t appear to have any real fidelity to specific policies is another clue. He has flipped on everything from abortion to single-payer health care and doesn’t even pretend to have any coherent approach to governing beyond loosely identifying himself as a conservative.

Fascists are not ideologues. They don’t hawk position papers or political philosophies. They are the supreme rulers of political cults. And like all cults the supreme leader is sustained by his loyal followers, who refuse to question his authority and turn on anyone who dares to criticize him.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/08/22/flirting-fascist-trumps-success-forces-gop-look-abyss


Corporatist during Mussolini's time meant something totally different than what might be called a corporationist today.

[Chris]

Trump has a lot of popularity among the working class.

Yea, I can just about imagine Trump singing this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU

[Chris]

:facepalm:

"Corporatist" again...this is idiotic on two levels: 1) that's simply not what corporatist means and 2) even if we want to assign the term an entirely new and vague meaning (something along the lines of 'in the pocket of big business') it would describe virtually every major politician in the United States.


The more appropriate term might be mercantilist.

[Chris]

To be fair, both partisan sides in the U.S. define themselves in opposition to apparitions.

Why? That's easy to answer: they are vapid and shallow and have no real principles to stand on. They have no identity of their own, so they exist only as opposition to The Other.

That's true given the right's fight against "socialism."

[Chris]

its the phony middle that has no principals and just sits on the sideline waiting for a republican to win that they can criticize.

but if its a dem like obama or hillary they will spend the next four years making sure conservatives are not too mean spirited.

libs make me sick to my stomach


Establishment type like you and trueblue, who follow talking points and scripts, are the ones with no principles.

Script: "libs make me sick to my stomach"

[Mister D]

Corporatist during Mussolini's time meant something totally different than what might be called a corporationist today.

I would also suggest that this contemporary phenomenon, by whatever term we want to refer to it, is not an ideology or a system of thought. It's not even a style of politics. It's simply a description of what happens when power and wealth become synonymous.

[Common Sense]

Power and wealth have been virtually synonymous for a long long time.

[Mister D]

Power and wealth have been virtually synonymous for a long long time.

No, they haven't. In historical terms, it's relatively recent.

[Safety]

You don't become the success that he has as an idiot.

Free media coverage is not stupid either. Now If he kept this up all the way to the election I would not likely vote for him either, but I don't see that happening. I admit that I could be wrong.

Money has a way to make up for areas one may be lacking.

[Green Arrow]

You will be looking and looking and looking for eternity

Not really. All it takes is to open up the debates to more than just Democrats and Republicans and cover the other candidates just as much as the two major parties.

[IMPress Polly]

I hope to respond at greater length later, but I think this needs to be said right away: You people seem to be very hung up on my use of the term "fascist". I apply this term to Trump not out of hyperbole, but because it applies. Like I said in the OP, we might alternately use terms like "ultra-nationalist" if we wanted to be polite, but I prefer connecting this particular ideology up to its despicable heritage, personally. When I say that Trump is a fascist, I mean that proper fascists (e.g. Storm Front, the Klan, etc.) have endorsed him and that his program is basically a lighter version of the Constitution Party's in that it revolves around mass deportations, trade war, and aggressive military buildup...or, in short, hostility toward foreign nations, the foreign-born, and anyone or anything connected to those people and things (e.g. the citizen children of undocumented workers, the Spanish language, etc.). He's the only candidate running on that kind of platform too. His is logically comparable to the programs of the British National Party, the French National Front, Golden Dawn in Greece, etc. He's a fascist. It's not hyperbole; it's a fact of life.

Now Chris has criticized my attribution of his support primarily to working class people. That too is fact. The surveys also break down the demographic composition of from whence one's support comes and it is a fact that Trump has a fair amount of support among WHITE working class people. Bearing in mind that the Republican Party is basically all white (its candidate slate notwithstanding; the party's membership composition is 89% white), that basically means he is the candidate of the Republican Party's working class. It's not hard to see why. He's the only Republican proposing economic policies that would actually benefit working class people, like a new economic stimulus package to repair and update the nation's crumbling infrastructure for example. He's likewise the only Republican running who opposes Citizens United and cuts to Social Security. When you also realize that his immigration position and position on trade are also considered a "labor" positions in the Republican Party (again, it's membership is basically all white), you can further grasp this. Rubio's political and economic program is more opposite that. However, Trump says he is "not a populist" and I suppose one can see the essence of why in that his program also calls for massive tax breaks for the richest people in the country and various other measures clearly designed to benefit his own class. Forget about their class backgrounds for a minute and focus on their platforms and you'll see what I'm getting at when I say that Rubio is emerging as the Wall Street candidate.

For my taste, I don't like either of them at all. What Trump is doing essentially is leveraging race and nationality against people's class interest. That's how fascism works.

[Chris]

I hope to respond at greater length later, but I think this needs to be said right away: You people seem to be very hung up on my use of the term "fascist". I apply this term to Trump not out of hyperbole, but because it applies. Like I said in the OP, we might alternately use terms like "ultra-nationalist" if we wanted to be polite, but I prefer connecting this particular ideology up to its despicable heritage, personally. When I say that Trump is a fascist, I mean that proper fascists (e.g. Storm Front, the Klan, etc.) have endorsed him and that his program is basically a lighter version of the Constitution Party's in that it revolves around mass deportations, trade war, and aggressive military buildup...or, in short, hostility toward foreign nations, the foreign-born, and anyone or anything connected to those people and things (e.g. the citizen children of undocumented workers, the Spanish language, etc.). He's the only candidate running on that kind of platform too. His is logically comparable to the programs of the British National Party, the French National Front, Golden Dawn in Greece, etc. He's a fascist. It's not hyperbole; it's a fact of life.

Now Chris has criticized my attribution of his support primarily to working class people. That too is fact. The surveys also break down the demographic composition of from whence one's support comes and it is a fact that Trump has a fair amount of support among WHITE working class people. Bearing in mind that the Republican Party is basically all white (its candidate slate notwithstanding; the party's membership composition is 89% white), that basically means he is the candidate of the Republican Party's working class. It's not hard to see why. He's the only Republican proposing economic policies that would actually benefit working class people, like a new economic stimulus package to repair and update the nation's crumbling infrastructure for example. He's likewise the only Republican running who opposes Citizens United and cuts to Social Security. When you also realize that his immigration position and position on trade are also considered a "labor" positions in the Republican Party (again, it's membership is basically all white), you can further grasp this. Rubio's political and economic program is more opposite that. However, Trump says he is "not a populist" and I suppose one can see the essence of why in that his program also calls for massive tax breaks for the richest people in the country and various other measures clearly designed to benefit his own class. Forget about their class backgrounds for a minute and focus on their platforms and you'll see what I'm getting at when I say that Rubio is emerging as the Wall Street candidate.

For my taste, I don't like either of them at all. What Trump is doing essentially is leveraging race and nationality against people's class interest. That's how fascism works.


You misuse the term fascist is all. And you continue to do so.

And you seem to make much of race yourself.

I don't like Trump either except as he might split the GOP.

[Mac-7]

You misuse the term fascist is all. And you continue to do so.

And you seem to make much of race yourself.

I don't like Trump either except as he might split the GOP.

Rightwing fascists MAY use race to divide people.

But so do progressives like obama.

Liberals are fascists economically in that they want private ownership of production but complete government control.

And they want the lions share of the profits to go to government to feed the welfare state.

Trump and Trump supporters have a legimate complaint about illegal aliens who are invading this country.

So if true fascists like obumer and his minions want to call us names so be it.

[Mister D]

Polly, you really are conflating terms here. The KKK wasn't even remotely fascist unless we want to reduce fascism to racism. OTOH, I guess you can just do that since the term has long been emptied of specific content. Carry on.

BTW, you might want to check out the platform of the French National Front. They support a welfare state party.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
You misuse the term fascist is all. And you continue to do so.

And you seem to make much of race yourself.

I don't like Trump either except as he might split the GOP.

I see you criticizing my use of the term, but I don't see you, or anyone, putting forward a more accurate definition that would show mine to be incorrect.


Private Pickle wrote:
So I hate answering point for point so I will focus on who will be nominated.

Clinton will get the nod (thanks to Biden) and rightly so. She has done her due diligence even after losing to Obama some 8 years ago. She has checked the boxes and filled in the4 blanks and as such there is no doubt that she, if President, would fulfill the exact role her party and by extension her supporters (big business) would expect. We get the same for the next 4-8 years.

The GOP is really the interesting thing here. I don't think the GOP has been in this state of change since the Civil Rights movement and before that Lincoln (the creation of the Republican Party). We are truly in a historic place with the GOP and whomever gets the nod will most likely change party politics forever.

My opinion, the only person Hillary can beat would be Trump and only in certain circumstances. If Trump gets the nod and somehow becomes a scholar of both foreign and domestic policy in so much that he can answer the simplest of questions he will win. If we look at Sarah Palin and her appeal we will realize that the American public isn't interested in voting for the best choice rather the choice that best appeals to them. The problem with Palin is that she was a complete and total moron who was unable to comprehend let alone memorize American history, foreign politics and least of all the nuances of economics.

Trump isn't an idiot and if he thinks he can really win, he may just forego his CEOship and put some real effort into understanding the issues. He will make the U.S. his corporation and if he does that he will beat Hillary. Is that a good thing? Meh, time will tell. Do I think he is a fascist? No. I think that's hyperbole. Do I think he is a Nationalist? Yes. Do I think that's a bad thing? Not sure. Depends. I'm a staunch Nationalist so it depends on how he approaches it.

Carson. Carson's faith is the only thing that is hurting him right now. I think that is a shame given the foundations on which this country is based. Carson is a level headed, intelligent individual who will tackle each issue on an individual basis and consult the people he surrounds himself to find the correct course of action. Carson is a Doctor and as such his heed of human life cannot be overlooked. His religion should be secondary to any thought given to his policies...as was Obama. Currently, despite his views on drugs, I still support Carson.

Rubio. Rubio will do the same thing Bush did with some restraint on foreign policy. The problem with Rubio is the same problem with Hillary. Rubio wins....Hillary wins...nothing changes.... That goes for Carson too. I don't think anything will change under Carson...I just think he is the most capable to continue the status quo.

With all that being said... Trump is the only guy that will shake things up. For the better...for the worse...who knows but $#@! would get real with Trump.

Here is my current stance. If Hillary gets the nod I will vote for anyone who has a chance to beat her. I don't care if it's Rubio, Carson or Trump. Fact is, we aren't in a better place today then we were 8 years ago and Hillary will continue that trend.

I like how thoroughly you've thought this out, Private Pickle! (It's more than we can say for the likes of Cletus, Mac-7, or Chris, for example.) The weakness of this analysis though, in my view, is its lack of reliance on concrete facts. The above is ultimately just a large collection of your personal hunches. Where is the data? Where are the survey results such as I highlighted to substantiate my case? What historical patterns are highlighted above? In short, where are the hard facts?


Common wrote:
Republican Side, I disagree with you somewhat Polly. I believe its a 3 way race still with a sleeper.

I believe its Trump, Rubion and Cruz, I think cruz is in sleeper mode collecting tons of cash from very rich donors and soon he will break out and flood everywhere with ads. I could be wrong. Im not saying hes going to win but I believe hes still very much a laid back player.

I also think the opposite if Trump wins hillary will have her toughtest time. If Rubio wins he will have his dignity shredded in the general all his failings will come to light that are being shoved under the rug at this point.

The problem I have with your proposed three-way breakdown prediction is that it doesn't provide any representation for the religious conservative branch of the Republican Party and they ALWAYS have a candidate who makes it through Super Tuesday. What's more, said candidate usually wins the Iowa Caucus. Consider the case of Mike Huckabee in 2008 or Rick Santorum in 2012, for example. Following that same pattern, we presently find Ben Carson leading in Iowa.

Ted Cruz may make the mistake of remaining in the contest too long at Trump's expense though, that's true. But that his supporters will ultimately wind up in the Trump camp really is beyond dispute, IMO. Cruz has barely stopped short of offering Trump a marriage proposal, so cordial is the relationship between the two.

Anyway, I simply dismiss the notion that Trump would fare better than Rubio in the general election because every credible survey to date suggests otherwise. Lots of polls show Clinton losing to Rubio. Very few have her losing to Trump. It's not hard to figure out why either.




Carlsen wrote:
he is rich and girls like him

So you mean beside Miley Cyrus? :wink:

Seriously, you couldn't possibly be any more wrong about that. The latest scientific survey data I have that pits Hillary Clinton up against the Donald in a hypothetical general election match-up shows Clinton leading Trump among female voters by a margin of 21 points, which would mark the largest gender gap ever in the history of this country since women first gained the right to vote in 1920. To put matters in perspective, that kind of gap implies that even wealthier white women, who normally vote Republican, would bolt for the Democratic camp in such a contest. On the other hand, the same poll finds Trump beating Clinton among male voters by a margin of 15 points...so, in other words, exactly the opposite of what you've proposed is true: Trump is rather liked by men and despised by women.

[birddog]

Polly, don't sell women short. They want Fair Trade and an improved economy, which Trump will deliver. Many women are tired of the same old lies and policies by both parties.

[zelmo1234]

I think that in most cased against Someone like Trump the women vote would kill him, especially when running against a women. But the truth is, in this case Women don't like Hilary either,

Because of this, I don't know how much vote she will swing, it may be like whit Romney and the conservatives, there is just a very low turn out.

[Mac-7]

I think that in most cased against Someone like Trump the women vote would kill him, especially when running against a women. But the truth is, in this case Women don't like Hilary either,

Because of this, I don't know how much vote she will swing, it may be like whit Romney and the conservatives, there is just a very low turn out.

Lib women will vote against Trump but not conservatives.

[IMPress Polly]

Oh come on, people, even ignoring the fact that he was the very first presidential candidate to come out in favor of shutting down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood, Trump is a man who has been accused of rape before under oath in a court of law. He's also the owner of the nation's most prominent beauty pageant. He's also somebody who makes a regular pattern of insulting women in ways that are not generic, but specifically gendered (e.g. allusions to a woman's period or outward appearance and I surely needn't get more specific). Hell, he can't even compliment women in ways that aren't gendered! (e.g. "I think you're beautiful.") We he looks at a woman, all he sees is her gender. All he sees is a piece of meat. He's so blatantly sexist that he even alienates the not-exactly-feminist Megyn Kellys of the world! He's NOT going to win the women's vote! I should think THAT much self-evident. Plus the polls very strongly suggest as much.

The Republican candidates with mostly female supporters include Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina and I think it safe to say that neither of them has any chance of winning their party's nomination.

[zelmo1234]

Oh come on, people, even ignoring the fact that he was the very first presidential candidate to come out in favor of shutting down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood, Trump is a man who has been accused of rape before under oath in a court of law. He's also the owner of the nation's most prominent beauty pageant. He's also somebody who makes a regular pattern of insulting women in ways that are not generic, but specifically gendered (e.g. allusions to a woman's period or outward appearance and I surely needn't get more specific). Hell, he can't even compliment women in ways that aren't gendered! (e.g. "I think you're beautiful.") We he looks at a woman, all he sees is her gender. All he sees is a piece of meat. He's so blatantly sexist that he even alienates the not-exactly-feminist Megyn Kellys of the world! He's NOT going to win the women's vote! I should think THAT much self-evident. Plus the polls very strongly suggest as much.

The Republican candidates with mostly female supporters include Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina and I think it safe to say that neither of them has any chance of winning their party's nomination.

I agree that he will not win the women's vote, but I don't think it will be a significant change in the numbers from other elections. Where as if it were someone like Mrs. Warren, I think that the numbers would change dramatically against a Trump.

Hilary is just not liked by a very large portion of the female population.

[Mac-7]

Seriously, you couldn't possibly be any more wrong about that. The latest scientific survey data I have that pits Hillary Clinton up against the Donald in a hypothetical general election match-up shows Clinton leading Trump among female voters by a margin of 21 points, which would mark the largest gender gap ever in the history of this country since women first gained the right to vote in 1920. To put matters in perspective, that kind of gap implies that even wealthier white women, who normally vote Republican, would bolt for the Democratic camp in such a contest. On the other hand, the same poll finds Trump beating Clinton among male voters by a margin of 15 points...so, in other words, exactly the opposite of what you've proposed is true: Trump is rather liked by men and despised by women.

Its a year till the election.

There is plenty of time for Trump to persuade the reasonable open-minded women.

And polls are not the same as elections.

[Chris]

I would also suggest that this contemporary phenomenon, by whatever term we want to refer to it, is not an ideology or a system of thought. It's not even a style of politics. It's simply a description of what happens when power and wealth become synonymous.

Mercantilism comes closest. But, right, no ideology, just whoever happens to have ower and whoever happens to have the wealth to purchase it.

[Chris]

I see you criticizing my use of the term, but I don't see you, or anyone, putting forward a more accurate definition that would show mine to be incorrect.....

It's been done many times. Same with discussions of Marxism, socialism, democratic socialism. But you're no where to be found.

[IMPress Polly]

Zelmo wrote:
I agree that he will not win the women's vote, but I don't think it will be a significant change in the numbers from other elections. Where as if it were someone like Mrs. Warren, I think that the numbers would change dramatically against a Trump.

Hilary is just not liked by a very large portion of the female population.

I think people overestimate the "boring candidate" factor. Mitt Romney was a boring candidate for the Republicans in 2012, but he managed to turn out pretty much the party's entire base anyway, statistically speaking. You know how he pulled it off? By simply nominating someone more exciting to the party base as his running mate: Paul Ryan. Do you really think for a second that Hillary Clinton would never consider doing something analogous? What's to stop her from calling on her friend Elizabeth Warren to join the ticket as her running mate, for example? Do you really think that Warren wouldn't accept, considering that she personally petitioned Clinton to run, or that Clinton would never think of picking Warren as her running mate when you consider the glowing article she (Clinton) wrote earlier this year about how Warren has influenced her life and politics? They're not enemies!

Here's what I think would go through Mrs. Clinton's mind concerning the strategic picking of a running mate:

-If the Republicans nominate Trump, it would be advantageous for Clinton to pick Elizabeth Warren because the simple fact of Trump being the Republican nominee would secure for Clinton practically the entire Latino vote, which might otherwise be more contested. Therefore, with the Latino vote secured, it would be safe for Clinton to explore the possibility of adding a new voting block to the Democratic camp: white women. Mr. Trump's nomination, as I've explained, would be the first Republican selection to really open up that possibility. White women normally vote Republican overall, but to a lesser degree than white men do precisely due to the superior gender politics that the Democratic Party has to offer women. Feminism is presently a sort of wedge issue the Democrats use mainly to peel off a section of white women from the Republicans. With someone as sexist as Trump as the Republican nominee though, an all-female ticket could turn gender politics into more than a wedge issue though. It could set a precedent wherein the average white woman begins to reconsider her party allegiances, and not just for the short run. The only risk lies in an all-female ticket alienating too many men...but you know, with Trump as the Republican nominee, men as a voting block would be lost big time anyway (as I've pointed out already).

-If, on the other hand, the Republicans instead choose Rubio, the road ahead for Clinton would become more difficult because she would now have to compete seriously for Latino voters, to which end she might want to consider picking someone like Julian Castro as her running mate to shore herself up in that area. (Picking Elizabeth Warren wouldn't help her with the Latino vote, you know, so if that were to become endangered...) Adding a new voting block might be out of the question for Clinton if the Republicans nominate Rubio because Rubio would be much less alienating to Latinos, and also perhaps to white women (though his opposition to letting even rape victims get abortions might hurt him among women very broadly). The problem there is that people like Julian Castro don't generate a lot of enthusiasm either, so voter turnout on the Democratic side might resultantly become an issue. In short, it would be more difficult for Clinton to beat someone like Rubio, where against Trump she'd clearly be in a position to go on the offensive and possibly even expand the Democratic Party's base.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I knew upon seeing the thread's author that this would be a partisan hack thread. Of course it attempts to paint Conservatives as either corporatists or fascists or religious kooks and nobody else from "The Right" has a chance. But conveniently they ignore how Clinton is bought by the Unions and Sanders is probably the same bullshit Obama was 8 years ago (hope and change, promises of transparency and less government oppression, that will never be realized) and the naïve gullible sheeple eat fall for Polly's bullshit every time.

Not me. I knew before opening this thread what it would be. The OP is as predictable as the fact that fresh paint will dry or old wallpaper will peel.