Bad news regarding the American presidential election

1. Trump has more minority support than you might suppose (read here)

American minorities tend to be Christian and unemployed and they see the GOP as more family-oriented, more supportive of Christianity, and in the case of Trump probably more able to improve their job situation. 

2. Trump will most likely be the GOP candidate (read here)

It's simply becoming obvious that Trump will be the GOP's entry in the 2016 presidential race.

3. A Bernie Sanders candidacy would likely result in a GOP win, so they are laying off him and concentrating on helping him get Hillary out of the way (read here and here)

Basically, the GOP strategy is to try to get Clinton out of the way in order to be able to run against the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. Socialism in the US is down there with pedophilia and atheism in terms of disregard. 

Views: 1098

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Pundits are wrong, a lot, about this sort of thing.

The public includes dolts/tea party and one issue voters, as well as those who actually weight the involved factors.

Generally, the extremists at either end of the bell curve tend to lose nationally.

The power of Trump is a bit unusual though, in that he is SO out of it politically, and SO a-political in his approach, that he is viewed as the un-politician.

The US is SO sick of politics, partisan politics in general, that a candidate who looks to wreck the place (political landscape) starts to look attractive.

This is why some dems are even thinking of voting for him.

I too like Bernie, but, again, that "S Word" eliminates the voters over ~ 45 or so....and, as a group, they tend to show up at the polls, especially those over 65.

Those more elderly demographics tend to include more people who are conservative, and therefore more republican, but can also include some more liberal minded members, such as Bernie himself.

So states that go democratic in general will be more likely to go with Bernie if its a Bernie/Trump dual.

I see it, so far at least, if Trump is the Repub guy, as Clinton being the opponent.

That is the establishment types are OK with Hilary, and the anti-everything types with Trump.

Bernie / Trump means the extremes of both sides have some one who might shake things up.

They are also both candidates that could cause hordes of voters from both parties to just stay home on election day, as they might not be able to justify crossing party lines, but just can't in good conscious vote for their party's choice.

So, its a real horse race.


Bernie badly needs someone to coach him on his physical presence. He's like John McCsin was with his pacing, arm-waving, finger-pointing, and scowling. McCain lost to the cool as a cucumber unflappable Obama. 

I'm not sure the public at large (the many undecideds) wants to vote for someone who looks like a schoolmaster beside himself about the low scores on the pop quiz.

Beyond that, Sanders would be a disastrous President, especially if he tries to fulfill some of his campaign promises like replacing Obamacare with a single-payer plan.

I don't see him as being able to form a washington coalition of those who would be ok throwing out ObamaCare AND installing a "Socialist" plan instead.  

The OTHER side might be OK with chucking ObamaCare, lord knows they've made 100's of goes at it...but, NOT if the replacement is not THEIR'S.  (And there is no "theirs"...)


I'd like a leftish President who has realistic plans that might actually happen.

That doesn't describe Sanders.

A lot of experts point out that Sanders is relatively mute on how he'd fund a lot of the things he's proposing.

He does admit that taxes will go up, but...

The trouble is, the public won't listen to the but, just the headline: taxes going up. Another reason he's unelectable.

If it could be done what would be so disastrous about single payer? Unless you work in the healthcare insurance industry of course.

@Rocky John (back to the top level)

If it could be done what would be so disastrous about single payer? Unless you work in the healthcare insurance industry of course.

Or you're a doctor or anyone in an allied field such as physical therapists, lab technicians, opharmacists, or anyone sells things to doctors or pharmacists. It wouldn't be a minor change.

But that isn't what I was saying anyway.

Rather, I was referring to the fact, which Hillary points out, that reopening the healthcare debate could have negative unintended consequences.

Also, it would inevitably mean raising taxes, which he admits. 

Besides, there's that bugaboo that it's "socialist."

But you must admit that your healthcare is a complete mess as it currently is. You on average pay 2 or 3 times as much for generally lower quality healthcare than those evil socialist commie countries like Canada or the UK.

Maybe you don't know how healthcare in socialist countries is described to Americans.

Here's how it's described.

In socialist countries, there are often long waits for doctor visits, tests, and treatments.

You don't get to choose your own doctor.

Treatments often require committee approval.

Critique of Canada's system.

Critique of the United Kingdom system.

Critique of Sweden's system.

Don't get me wrong. I would welcome a single-payer socialized system. I'm just telling you how such systems are portrayed to Americans. 

Wow! I don't really know what else to say. I mean it is by no means perfect but nothing like the impression given there...

It's the Republicans who oppose national healthcare and they seem to have a problem when it comes to facts.

Also, there's the Republican guideline to never let a fact get in the way of a dogma.

Most dogma's barks are worse than their bite.


The nice thing for Republicans, is they can throw some truthiness for their dogma to go fetch.

As for Bernie, he does spell out, for each proposal, how he intends to pay for it.

Its a comprehensive list, and he cites references.

The problem is that he mostly wants to cut out loopholes the rich use to get out of paying taxes.

As the rich are the ones who can afford lobbyists/politicians, they get to spin the truthiness as they feel is in their best interests.

This is why many of the sources mentioned ARE biased sources...and get quoted anyway.

Journalists in these fields need stats...and, if you supply ANY, they tend to be used.  Ideally, your opponent's stats are unknown/not presented, as that allows even wider leeway, and so forth.

As the well worn story goes, there are liars, damned liars, and statisticians.   The implication is that statisticians lie more than damned liars.

The reality is that statistics don't lie, in of themselves, unless incorrect essentially,...but, if you don't know how to interpret what they can be fooled.


Headlined as "Economy Improves!"

1) Unemployment claims are down 10%!

2) Stock Market has risen to 10% above what it was before the crash!

3) New Car Sales Soar as consumers show new confidence in the economy!  SUV sales exceed all prior records!

Same data, Headlines as "Economy is a Disaster!"

1) Unemployment claims still being made daily.

2) Stock market shows decline again yesterday.

3) Nervous consumers buy record numbers of SUV's in preparation for projected economic collapse of government and civil unrest, protests and looting.

And so forth.



© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service