Trump

[Darkflame]

, if Sanders and Trump are the choices of the other two parties. There’s no way he can win

hmm..
You think more dems would vote Trump then republicans would vote Sanders? Really not sure at all about that.
Likewise I don't see a reason to suspect undecided voters will go to Trump either.

Sanders is for sure the riskier choice - no question - but I see no reason why he is less electable then Trump in a relative sense, let alone it being a sure thing.

I also suspect Trump would inspire a lot of the younger people normally not voting to get up and vote...against him.
By comparison, I cant see the republicans inspiring the anti-socialist youth vote in the same way.

[pogo]

You think more dems would vote Trump then republicans would vote Sanders? Really not sure at all about that.
Likewise I don't see a reason to suspect undecided voters will go to Trump either.

Sanders is for sure the riskier choice - no question - but I see no reason why he is less electable then Trump in a relative sense, let alone it being a sure thing.

I do not think there’s much scope for Democrats to support Trump, and don’t see how you get that from what I wrote (the bit you quote is from two sentences about Michael Bloomberg).

There are two main ways to win the election, in the US system. First persuade independent voters. Voters there can register as Democrats or Republicans. This lets them e.g. take part in the primaries to select the candidate for their party in an election. Voters that do not register are independent and generally the most persuadable.

The other way is to motivate your own supporters more so a greater percentage vote. This is much harder though; it’s hard to move turnout by much as it depends on so many things. It can also backfire or at least cancel itself out if you motivate the other party’s voters to turn out too.

Most successful candidates do it the first way. Persuade enough independent voters and it does not matter how motivated the other candidate’s supporters are there won’t be enough of them. Trump and Sanders though are pursuing the second strategy. Motivate their base with more extremist policies than the rest (Sanders is extremist in the US system). This might serve them well in the primaries but should lose the election. Unless they both win their primaries, in which case it could be the hardest election to predict for a long time. Certainly it would be one of the oddest.

[merman]

Poor little Donald. The woman from Fox News was nasty to him in the first debate, so he threw his toys out of the pram and refused to take part in Fox's televised debate from Iowa (where the voting starts on Monday).

The other candidates got plenty of digs in. Except Jeb, who's a bigger wuss than Trump.

[PumaG]

Poor little Donald. The woman from Fox News was nasty to him in the first debate, so he threw his toys out of the pram and refused to take part in Fox's televised debate from Iowa (where the voting starts on Monday).

The other candidates got plenty of digs in. Except Jeb, who's a bigger wuss than Trump.

Shallow view IMO.I think Trump is being controlling and knows what he's doing. He's been the main draw of this 'show' and played this game before with CNN.
The feud with Kelly has been going on since August, based on her calling him out has a woman hater.
He's advised by a campaign manger and they know they've cost Fox a lot of money by taking them on, which he could consider a victory.

A bit of a hypocrite calling out the way Muslim immigrants in europe have been treating western women, made his own misogynistic comments on twitter. (The again do Kelly and Clinton call out that faith like they do Trump? hypocrisy there too. )
He's no doubt a Narcissist, but most are.

If you really want childish, check out Fox chairman's comments.

[Chontler]

How it should be...

[merman]

Poor little Donald. The woman from Fox News was nasty to him in the first debate, so he threw his toys out of the pram and refused to take part in Fox's televised debate from Iowa (where the voting starts on Monday).

The other candidates got plenty of digs in. Except Jeb, who's a bigger wuss than Trump.

Shallow view IMO.I think Trump is being controlling and knows what he's doing. He's been the main draw of this 'show' and played this game before with CNN.
The feud with Kelly has been going on since August, based on her calling him out has a woman hater.
He's advised by a campaign manger and they know they've cost Fox a lot of money by taking them on, which he could consider a victory.

A bit of a hypocrite calling out the way Muslim immigrants in europe have been treating western women, made his own misogynistic comments on twitter. (The again do Kelly and Clinton call out that faith like they do Trump? hypocrisy there too. )
He's no doubt a Narcissist, but most are.

If you really want childish, check out Fox chairman's comments.

Oh come on, surely the point of these debates is to expose the true character of the candidates.
By refusing to take part Trump is being childish, simply because he didn't get his own way.

[pogo]

It was very deliberate and calculated I think. He’s the front runner: the risk to him turning up is all on the downside. He sought to minimise this by first trying to exclude Kelly, the only moderator to embarrass him at a previous debate. Then when they would not exclude her he dropped out. In his place Cruz the other front runner got pummelled as everyone rounded on him.

[Darkflame]

You think more dems would vote Trump then republicans would vote Sanders? Really not sure at all about that.
Likewise I don't see a reason to suspect undecided voters will go to Trump either.

Sanders is for sure the riskier choice - no question - but I see no reason why he is less electable then Trump in a relative sense, let alone it being a sure thing.

I do not think there’s much scope for Democrats to support Trump, and don’t see how you get that from what I wrote (the bit you quote is from two sentences about Michael Bloomberg).

Sorry my bad quoting there confused the issue. I read what you posted, but then miss-read when cutting down the quote to a small line.

To be clear, I was trying to get clarity on which of these you thought was going to happen in order for Trump to win;
either
a) Either more (note the relative) democrats voters supporting Trump then republicans voters supporting Sanders.
b) Or motivation of undecided voters.
I was not intending to state that you thought many Democrats would support Trump. Merely these seemed the two possibilities.

As you point out, I did not take (c) motivation of current base turnout of each camp into account.

But I think my statement still apply's to that as well;

I also suspect Trump would inspire a lot of the younger people normally not voting to get up and vote...against him.
By comparison, I cant see the republicans inspiring the anti-socialist youth vote in the same way.

I honestly think pretty much anyone could win against Trump, frankly. Even with a split voter base. Trump is sort of the mentality of "all publicity is good" I think - which could backfire hugely when it comes to voting.

Sanders, who indeed is "extreme" by US standards is still likely more "meh" by comparison. Likewise many probably wont even know who Bloomberg is.

On the other hand its hard to be neutral or not caring about Trump.

[anon76235]

[k345y]

Woah! that guy in that vid is as big an unlikeable fucker as Trump is!

[pogo]

I honestly think pretty much anyone could win against Trump, frankly. Even with a split voter base. Trump is sort of the mentality of "all publicity is good" I think - which could backfire hugely when it comes to voting.

Sanders, who indeed is "extreme" by US standards is still likely more "meh" by comparison. Likewise many probably wont even know who Bloomberg is.

Sanders and Trump are both highly polarising candidates. It’s hard to see this with Sanders as what he is suggesting is a broadly centrist agenda by European standards. But by US standards he is a communist. Socialism is unknown in mainstream US politics. Normally when US politicians use it they are describing something foreign and unwanted, such as “Canada’s socialist healthcare”. The most common way to suggest someone is too left-wing is call them (or their policies) liberal, socialists just don’t exist.

Except Sanders is a socialist. The mainstream press has largely left him alone, thinking he cannot win. But if he were then they would turn on him with a vengeance, painting him as an extremist; too extreme to govern in a divided government.

Still think Sanders can’t win though. He could win the first two states but by pure luck they are the two states most favourable to him, after his home state. It is also not unusual for the eventual candidate to lose one or both of Iowa and New Hampshire, as often fringe candidates invest their limited resources in these states, hoping to get a boost and to knock out other candidates so they get more money to carry on. But it’s a marathon not a sprint, which takes money, stamina and resources to win.

edit: here is what I mean by Iowa and New Hampshire being especially favourable to him. Graph and analysis by 538.

Spoiler: show

[gumboot]

Woah! that guy in that vid is as big an unlikeable fucker as Trump is!

Not so much a debunk as a counter-whine, isn't it.

And he keeps on about facts, too. Who even uses those anymore?

[k345y]

And he keeps on about facts, too. Who even uses those anymore?

Indeed, when they're according to ....erm.....him, or some other cunt he garnered them from but fails to mention, he just spews that shit out anyway.

Yup, he's a proper political commentator. Not. He's a dick.

[pogo]

Iowa caucuses tonight. On the one hand they are extremely odd and meaningless; the state is too small to play any part in swinging the result, and the caucus process is so unlike other states’ processes that it is no predictor.

But as the first actual poll of any sort it has an undue influence. Weaker candidates often base their strategy on doing well in Iowa, or New Hampshire the other early state, to kickstart their campaign and put them in the running. If they don’t do well then they can go no further. More generally it crystallises the polls and makes it much harder for lower-ranked candidates to claim they have a chance. So expect lots of casualties especially on the Republican side where there‘s still a dozen or so candidates.

Trump is in no danger. He is likely to win one or both of the early states. Cruz and Rubio should also do well. Rubio in particular has pulled out ahead of other mainstream candidates, which may be enough to give him some momentum and force out the rest. I.e. it may be the last we see of Jeb Bush, and so of any Bush, in a national election. Some people’s fantasy of another Bush-Clinton matchup seems now very unlikely.

[zip accident]

I.e. it may be the last we see of Jeb Bush, and so of any Bush, in a national election. Some people’s fantasy of another Bush-Clinton matchup seems now very unlikely.

How old is this Clinton?

<Dr Who>Does she seem a bit tired? </Dr Who>