Is there a thread about this yet? Couldn't find one. Anyway..
So it would seem the US is following the rest of the western world in rejecting mainstream establishment candidates/parties in preference for 'extremist' firebrands. It'll be interesting to see if it lasts. My initial relief at the defeat of Trump in Iowa has been tempered by Cruz's apparent crazyness. Clinton must be wondering why she's bothering with all this again. Sanders is an interesting bloke. Perhaps a vision of what Corbyn isn't?
Every time i turn on the news to see some squirrel eating shitkicker whooping how he's going to be voting for 'The Donald' I fear for the future of humanity.
Throw Palin into the mix and you've a whole new level of keraaaaazy....
Its not funny any more. Make it stop! 😥
Well having looked into Cruz, I'm not so sure he's a better option than Trump. Trump for all his bombast is a bit of a circus figure, he'll say anything to win. I doubt he'd actually do a lot of it. Cruz on the other hand is much more sinister. A religious zealot basically as far as I can see. And I'm more scared of that than a egotistical attention seeker.
Trump and Sanders both lost to "machine" politicians.
Whilst Trump is a walloper, she is on another planet.
I would though....
Well as Trump has previously pointed out, not winning is being a loser. So it must be time for him to throw in the towel.
Trump and Sanders both lost to "machine" politicians.
Pushing it a bit to say Sanders lost. It was decided on a coin toss. And I'm not sure how in any sense you can call Cruz a 'machine' candidate. [url= http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/is-senator-ted-cruz-our-new-mccarthy ]Some think he's the new McCarthy[/url] and he's despised within the Republican establishment.
Some think he's the new McCarthy
To be fair, its not a struggle to imagine any Republican candidate for the last 2 decades ending up with that tag. They all do the wrapping themselves up in the flag/if you're not with us, you're against us thing by default
I would though....
Would you?…really?…… 😯
Well as Trump has previously pointed out, not winning is being a loser. So it must be time for him to throw in the towel.
I don't think being a loser in Iowa is that much of a predictor of the eventual winner, at least as far as the Republican nomination is concerned.
Feels like a very bad dream. And I thought Scottish politics was worrying! 😉
Caught bits of the Trump programmes last week, and that was genuinely scary.
I know who'd get my vote
[img] 
[/img]
The current debate is whether Ted Cruz is actually able to _be_ president. The thinking is that, despite living in the US, he's a naturalised Canadian (by birth) and, as such, is ineligible.
That would be a hilarious outcome.
Anyway, the only sensible candidate is John McAfee.
Despite my approval of Corbyn winning the labour leadership, when I look at Sanders it does make me despair that the British left couldn't come up with a similarly passionate candidate. For all his measured intellectualism, Corbyn could do with a bit more anger rather than just sneering disapproval. Question is could Sanders actually win (the presidency, not the candidacy)? Or would he condemn the world to Cruz or Trump should he win the nomination? It's a scary dilemma for the lefties.
I think you can tell a lot about a candidate by their memes. Bernie's is the wordiest and most hardcore
[img] 
?t=zb5w5lqknFYxaP1XjJNgkg&f=1454907600[/img]
but it's also indistinguishable from reality
[img] 
[/img]
Well having looked into Cruz, I'm not so sure he's a better option than Trump. Trump for all his bombast is a bit of a circus figure, he'll say anything to win. I doubt he'd actually do a lot of it. Cruz on the other hand is much more sinister. A religious zealot basically as far as I can see. And I'm more scared of that than a egotistical attention seeker.
Nail on head...
Couldn't agree more, the last thing the world needs right now is another religious nut job in charge of the most powerful nation on earth.
nyt story was headlined "Trump receives humbling defeat in Iowa". I doubt it will humble him...
Trump and Saunders are not-electable by the majority of the population. The process to select the candidates are done by a tiny proportion of the population and tend to attract the extremists.
Even the Americans could not elect Trump.
Cruz requires the hard core right wing Christian votes - and (hopefully) there are not enough of those.
Rubio is therefore likely to be selected on one side.
Clinton will be on the other. Saunders may do well in the NE states, but has no chance in the South, West and mid-West. This removes the big states of Florida, Texas and California.
I think Clinton may struggle in some of those states as well. For a start, she's a woman (not good with south, south-west states) and is in favour of tighter gun control (not good with anything but California).
I'm not a political commentator though, so will probably be wrong.
Clinton will be on the other. [s]Saunders[/s] Sanders may do well in the NE states, but has no chance in the South, West and mid-West. This removes the big states of Florida, Texas and California.
I think Sanders will do better in California if he gets the nomination.
Clinton will be on the other.
And I bet you thought Andy Burnham would be labour leader? How can you say that with such certainty given that Sanders poll ratings were in single figures not long ago and he was written off, and now he's tied with Clinton in Iowa? What evidence is there that what happened here is not also happening in the US?
willard - Memberis in favour of tighter gun control (not good with anything but California).
Well here's an interesting point... Because when you ask most americans "are you in favour of tighter gun control" most say no. But if you ask them if the want mandatory background checking, 70% (or higher, depending on the poll) say yes.
There's an obvious contradiction there and the most likely explanation is that most americans think gun control is much stricter than it actually is- so new laws are simultaneously seen as draconian, while still not being as strict as they assume the law to be.
It's such an emotive issue that it's probably hard to educate people but you can still position it, and they've got smarter at this- talking about responsible gun owners, "gun safety" not gun control. But it's easy to counter with DEY TURK UR GUNZ
sadmadalan's post reflects the consensus of the political commentators - Sanders needed to win and Rubio is sufficiently close that he should do well in other states. Hey, but consensus can be wrong.
consensus of the political commentators
After the past 6-12 months I don't think anyone can say that sentence with a straight face any more. Of course whether that applies to the US rather than the UK is the question. I may be wrong but it seem like a lot of the dynamics in play here with regard to the SNP, Corbyn, the election etc, are also playing out in the US, but with much higher stakes an potential consequences.
At this stage, where the parties vote for their favoured candidate, what is stopping democrats voting for a complete nutter on the republican side to skew the process?
Question is could Sanders actually win (the presidency, not the candidacy)?
If he runs against Trump, then definitely. Trump is such an imbecile he'll be found out. Not all of America is as stupid as the Trump supporters, fortunately.
At this stage, where the parties vote for their favoured candidate, what is stopping democrats voting for a complete nutter on the republican side to skew the process?
I think most US primaries are closed, i.e. you are either a registered Republican or Democrat and can only vote in the relevant party's primary. There could be a rush of Democrats registering as Republicans, but it would have to be a lot of people to make a difference.
It does happen. My friend was an active Democratic Party member and he told me the local Dems and Reps regularly registered on each other's side to try and get the most loony candidate nominated. (This was for state politics - idk if he also meant it happened for presidential campaigns.)
Northwind, I think many Americans see the two seemingly contradicting gun control questions like this:
"I want to have access to any type of firearm I like with no restriction (i.e. do not tighten gun control on the firearm type or capacity), but I am fine with having you check the FBI database and criminal records for all firearm purchases (i.e. to prevent convicted felons having legal access to firearms)".
It's when you get deeper into the politics, constitutional aspects and the 'riders' that are put on most bills that lobbyist such as the NRA throw a spanner into the works. Much of the sensible legislation that the NRA opposes is opposed for broader reasons than they actually articulate. They (NRA, conservatives etc.) are very scared of ending up like the boiling frog - slowly enveloped in a cosy warm bath of federal 'help and assistance' and ending up with all their civil liberties boiled away.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/04/new-hampshire-town-hall-clinton-and-sanders-spar-over-progressive-record ]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/04/new-hampshire-town-hall-clinton-and-sanders-spar-over-progressive-record[/url]
The parallels between the UK and US are becoming ever clearer. Now that the democrat establishment has woken up to the fact that Sanders can't be dismissed or written off, they're trying to rewrite history and portray their candidate as a woman-of-the-people progressive, who absolutely isn't a puppet of wall st. and corporate America. Next she'll be saying she wants to nationalise the railways.
When ordinary people have shite lives while the political elites just free ride all the way then it worth the risks to vote in someone different to see if there can be improvement ...
Problem is, for corbs and sanders when it comes to election time period fear change and will just go with the corporate lapdogs : Cameron/Clinton etc
I see Trump is now claiming fraud, going on the defensive and fueling the "Washington is just for the elite" conspiracy nut jobs.
Problem is, for corbs and sanders when it comes to election time period fear change and will just go with the corporate lapdogs : Cameron/Clinton etc
True, but in this case we have the extremely interesting potential scenario of non-establishment candidates on both sides. Should he win the nomination, I'd say Sanders has a much better chance of winning the election than Corbyn ever will. The stakes are huge though, is it worth the risk of ending up with Trump or Cruz?
The repbulicans are now horse-trading on who would do the most torturing. You couldn't make it up.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/donald-trump-waterboarding-republican-debate-torture ]http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/donald-trump-waterboarding-republican-debate-torture[/url]
The repbulicans are now horse-trading on who would do the most torturing. You couldn't make it up.
Yep. Can't understand why Assange doesn't want to be dragged there!!
old story, but I couldn't help hearing the voice and melodic, artful use of lanuage of Cletus' wife from the Simpsons when Palin was speaking/shouting in support of Trump the other day.
Also, even older story but I reliase there is a lot of love for the Princess Bride on here it seems: have we done this one?
[url= http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/12/ted-cruz-the-princess-bride-mandy-patinkin ]Mandy Patinkin on Cruz missing the point about Inigo Montoya[/url]
“I have been in the revenge business so long, now that it’s over, I don’t know what to do with the rest of my life.”
so basically he said those words dont mean what you think they do 😉
Nice article and interesting take he has. Have to confess I had not thought that much about that line or the deeper meaning of the film
[b]Doom! [/b] We are.
[img] 
[/img]
Junkyard - lazarus
...Have to confess I had not thought that much about that line or the deeper meaning of the film
...there's a deeper meaning to the film?
😯
surroundedbyhills - MemberI see Trump is now claiming fraud, going on the defensive and fueling the "Washington is just for the elite" conspiracy nut jobs.
It's not fraud but he's got a point, Cruz's tactics were pure shitebaggery. Though it's kind of ironic that after months of him being an obvious shitebag, a little lie on election night is what's finally convinced lots of people that he's a shitebag.
So anyone betting on a Sanders vs Trump election? Incredible to think about it. For some bizarre reason I almost feel sorry for Clinton, in the same way that I felt sorry for Burnham. What should be her cast iron chance of the presidency is disappearing on a wave of anti-establishment sentiment. She has a habit of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Long way to go yet though, and a lot of mud to be slung and dirty dishes to be washed in public.
Some commentators have been suggesting recently that if a Trump vs Sanders election is looking likely, Michael Bloomburg will stand as an independent and presumably pitch himself as a sane middle-ground candidate.
Coowee did you catch Trump yesterday ?
US election... has suddenly become interesting. 😯