The Republican establishment and the people bankrolling it must be in despair at their party’s slate of candidates. New Hampshire has made things worse for them in many ways.
Trump first. That was expected but he won so convincingly that any hope he would fade soon is gone.
Kasich second. So is he the great saviour of the party from Trump? Problem is he is relatively untested nationally, and is probably too moderate to win in more conservative southern states.
Cruz, Bush and Rubio joint third. OK, they did actually come third fourth and fifth in that order but so close that there’s nothing between them. This keeps them in the race, but with less than Trump’s votes between them none looks likely to challenge him any time soon.
Still the problem is too many candidates. But with no-one other than Trump getting more than 16% no-one is too far behind. Every candidate must feel they are only one good debate performance away from Kasich’s second place. But they have to get there quickly, as voting has now started and candidates are amassing delegates.
Trump
-
pogo
- Sheepie Whore
- Posts: 14180
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:28 pm 0
- Yahoo Messenger: BrassSparrow
- Location: County Durham
Re: Trump
Christie has dropped out. A shame – I would vote Democrat if I had a vote in the US election, but if I had to support anyone in the Republican campaign it would have been Chris Christie. He came sixth in New Hampshire, with only 7% of the vote. That’s not far behind the three candidates who came 3rd, 4th and 5th with 10-11% of the vote, but Bush and Rubio are two of those, and he needed a stronger showing against them. Next up is South Carolina whose religious voters will favour Cruz and Carson.
The beneficiary will surely be Bush. Especially after Rubio’s slip ups Bush looks like the only acceptable mainstream candidate, with Kasich too moderate. If Bush picks up some support and momentum then other candidates could drop out. At which point Trump’s 30-35% won’t be enough. Or at least that must be the hope of Bush and his supporters. Problem, as always, is the other candidates.
The beneficiary will surely be Bush. Especially after Rubio’s slip ups Bush looks like the only acceptable mainstream candidate, with Kasich too moderate. If Bush picks up some support and momentum then other candidates could drop out. At which point Trump’s 30-35% won’t be enough. Or at least that must be the hope of Bush and his supporters. Problem, as always, is the other candidates.
Re: Trump
For me the blind terror at the idea of Trump as a president has more or less blinded me to how awful the other candidates might be -- and I haven't really cared. I mean, I know abstractly that while Jeb looks like one of few Republican candidates with the mental faculties to tie his own shoelaces, he is a Bush and is probably evil. But Trump is still a scarier prospect and I'm keen to see that risk eliminated as soon as possible.
But it's perfectly possible that Trump has no chance against all of the people who would vote "anyone but Trump" when it comes down to being a two horse race, and having him there to fuck up the Republican candidacy might actually be the best outcome.
Maybe right now I should be cheering Trump on. For the time being I should be a loud, proud, and in-your-face Trumper.
Not that I can vote or anything.
But it's perfectly possible that Trump has no chance against all of the people who would vote "anyone but Trump" when it comes down to being a two horse race, and having him there to fuck up the Republican candidacy might actually be the best outcome.
Maybe right now I should be cheering Trump on. For the time being I should be a loud, proud, and in-your-face Trumper.
Not that I can vote or anything.
Re: Trump
To an extent, fuck Trump.
What's problematic is that the Democrats have decided to split their vote between Sanders and Hillary at exactly the wrong moment, when the Republican field is a total over-subscribed mess of disastrous and not obviously appealing candidates. They're not capitalising on how the Republican party is internally falling apart, with its "Tea Party" faction, and dealing the killing blow that would send that party into a soul-searching wilderness for years to come.
Because while Sanders appeals to the leftist liberals - a politician happy to unashamedly call himself "socialist" in America? You've got to admire that principled stand, in a nation where "socialist" is largely interpreted as "Satanist who eats babies", thanks to McCarthyism and the Red Scare - the problem is that this likely won't fly with the wider population at all. The right-leaning press and TV - Fox News and their ilk - will be merciless in calling him "socialist" over and over again, if he wins the Democratic ticket, playing up all those worst "socialist = evil Satanist who eats babies" fears, dialled right up to 11.
Hillary might be, for the leftists, a touch too "establishment", a touch too "gradual incrementalist" rather than "radical socialist revolutionary" for their tastes and so forth, but she's simply the more convincing ticket for the wider populous.
Yes, even with the slight strain of misogyny that I've heard the odd American express, worried that a woman in charge might be too "emotional" or "weak" (yeah, a thought that we in the UK would never take remotely seriously after Maggie - love her or hate her, and whether she considered herself a "feminist" or not (she didn't), Maggie definitely killed off any notion that a woman would be weak or emotional and then some. Maggie's problem, from the point of view of those who hated her, was that she was far too tyrannical - much too effective in getting what she wanted in terms of radical social change - not that she was ever too conciliatory or compromising. Plus, Queen Liz has also done a competent job - even as a small "r" republican, you can't actually complain about Liz's conduct at any point because, even if you don't believe the job should exist in the first place, you can't fault Liz for having done it absolutely perfectly so far - that bangs the final nail in the "women aren't good enough" coffin inside every Brit's mind. Not even a question over here anymore).
But such is the currency of labelling someone "socialist" (or "atheist" - the assumed religious convictions of an "evil socialist", as Marx unfortunately recommended it (yeah, remembering I'm an atheist myself, note that criticism carefully) in American politics. In polls asking this, Americans would rather vote for a Muslim as President, before they'd vote for a socialist (and "atheist" is bottom of the pile as the last thing they'd ever vote for - which might explain why there's only ever been one openly atheist member of Congress, even though it's statistically unlikely with 535 members of Congress that they're all telling the truth about their religious convictions). They still push the "Kenyan Muslim" thing with Obama, even now - and Trump was the de facto leader of the "Truthers" insisting on his birth certificate and still didn't even properly concede when that birth certificate was actually delivered - so there is no way that Bernie won't get a constant perpetual never-ending relentless assault of "socialist, socialist, socialist", portrayed as "evil baby-eating Satanist", over and over again until they win the election on the back of that fear.
By rights, the Republicans are falling apart. Their internal conflicts, with the "Tea Party", ought be too much for the party to bear. And if they lost this election, with the rogue Tea-party-esque Trump somehow becoming their candidate, then it would force a realignment, as more moderate Republicans are faced with the "how the fuck was this ever allowed to happen?" question staring them squarely in the face, in horrible defeat.
And, in their warring and divided state, the Republicans would likely be lost in the wilderness for not just this election, but a few more to come. As realigning and sorting out a party - as we know from both of our main parties having needed to do that here in the UK - ain't a speedy process at all.
That's all right there on a silver platter for the Democrats. All they have to do is put up the more generally acceptable nomination of Hillary, which'll play better across the nation, instead of playing with the fire that is "socialist" Sanders (and, yes, there's an alliteration there, so expect him to always be uniformly "socialist Sanders" over and over again, every single time, in the right-leaning media, until it sticks and ruins his chances of actually winning).
The nightmare scenario is that the Republicans - falling apart as they are - end up with fucking Trump, of all people, as their nomination. Which ought to mean that a Democratic victory is in the bag. But, no, they put up Sanders against him and scared by socialism, Trump actually fucking wins. An openly racist candidate - not remotely controllable by his party, as he's non-establishment and has even flip-flopped a few times (there is irony that Trump has fed money to Hillary's campaign before, which just, by the way, underscores my point that she has more universal appeal, when even her potential opponent has actually happily funded her before now) - could end up President.
With the Republicans imploding, now is exactly not the time for the Democrats to "experiment" with a radical socialist (okay, he's not remotely "radical" by European standards - indeed, "European socialist" is often the description used for him - but, for the already right-leaning American populous, that counts as "radical socialism" for them. It's deeply "radical" simply to be admitting you're a "socialist" at all over there).
Strategy. Even if you're non-plussed by Hillary as a Democrat, give her the ticket anyway, because she appeals more broadly and her victory would bury the Republicans in internal conflict for probably a good few elections to come (and that's when you can put up Sanders, after Hillary, because a demolished Republican party, attacking itself for being at least 12 years (possibly 16) out of power because of mad radical "Tea Party" invasion screwing everything up, will likely struggle to remain united - and be too busy trying to realign itself and get its own house in order - to pose much of a threat for several elections to come).
It's right there. On a silver platter. But the Democrats have decided to go mad too, and flirt with "socialist Sanders".
To quote Shakespeare, "I understand the fury in your words, but not the words".
What's problematic is that the Democrats have decided to split their vote between Sanders and Hillary at exactly the wrong moment, when the Republican field is a total over-subscribed mess of disastrous and not obviously appealing candidates. They're not capitalising on how the Republican party is internally falling apart, with its "Tea Party" faction, and dealing the killing blow that would send that party into a soul-searching wilderness for years to come.
Because while Sanders appeals to the leftist liberals - a politician happy to unashamedly call himself "socialist" in America? You've got to admire that principled stand, in a nation where "socialist" is largely interpreted as "Satanist who eats babies", thanks to McCarthyism and the Red Scare - the problem is that this likely won't fly with the wider population at all. The right-leaning press and TV - Fox News and their ilk - will be merciless in calling him "socialist" over and over again, if he wins the Democratic ticket, playing up all those worst "socialist = evil Satanist who eats babies" fears, dialled right up to 11.
Hillary might be, for the leftists, a touch too "establishment", a touch too "gradual incrementalist" rather than "radical socialist revolutionary" for their tastes and so forth, but she's simply the more convincing ticket for the wider populous.
Yes, even with the slight strain of misogyny that I've heard the odd American express, worried that a woman in charge might be too "emotional" or "weak" (yeah, a thought that we in the UK would never take remotely seriously after Maggie - love her or hate her, and whether she considered herself a "feminist" or not (she didn't), Maggie definitely killed off any notion that a woman would be weak or emotional and then some. Maggie's problem, from the point of view of those who hated her, was that she was far too tyrannical - much too effective in getting what she wanted in terms of radical social change - not that she was ever too conciliatory or compromising. Plus, Queen Liz has also done a competent job - even as a small "r" republican, you can't actually complain about Liz's conduct at any point because, even if you don't believe the job should exist in the first place, you can't fault Liz for having done it absolutely perfectly so far - that bangs the final nail in the "women aren't good enough" coffin inside every Brit's mind. Not even a question over here anymore).
But such is the currency of labelling someone "socialist" (or "atheist" - the assumed religious convictions of an "evil socialist", as Marx unfortunately recommended it (yeah, remembering I'm an atheist myself, note that criticism carefully) in American politics. In polls asking this, Americans would rather vote for a Muslim as President, before they'd vote for a socialist (and "atheist" is bottom of the pile as the last thing they'd ever vote for - which might explain why there's only ever been one openly atheist member of Congress, even though it's statistically unlikely with 535 members of Congress that they're all telling the truth about their religious convictions). They still push the "Kenyan Muslim" thing with Obama, even now - and Trump was the de facto leader of the "Truthers" insisting on his birth certificate and still didn't even properly concede when that birth certificate was actually delivered - so there is no way that Bernie won't get a constant perpetual never-ending relentless assault of "socialist, socialist, socialist", portrayed as "evil baby-eating Satanist", over and over again until they win the election on the back of that fear.
By rights, the Republicans are falling apart. Their internal conflicts, with the "Tea Party", ought be too much for the party to bear. And if they lost this election, with the rogue Tea-party-esque Trump somehow becoming their candidate, then it would force a realignment, as more moderate Republicans are faced with the "how the fuck was this ever allowed to happen?" question staring them squarely in the face, in horrible defeat.
And, in their warring and divided state, the Republicans would likely be lost in the wilderness for not just this election, but a few more to come. As realigning and sorting out a party - as we know from both of our main parties having needed to do that here in the UK - ain't a speedy process at all.
That's all right there on a silver platter for the Democrats. All they have to do is put up the more generally acceptable nomination of Hillary, which'll play better across the nation, instead of playing with the fire that is "socialist" Sanders (and, yes, there's an alliteration there, so expect him to always be uniformly "socialist Sanders" over and over again, every single time, in the right-leaning media, until it sticks and ruins his chances of actually winning).
The nightmare scenario is that the Republicans - falling apart as they are - end up with fucking Trump, of all people, as their nomination. Which ought to mean that a Democratic victory is in the bag. But, no, they put up Sanders against him and scared by socialism, Trump actually fucking wins. An openly racist candidate - not remotely controllable by his party, as he's non-establishment and has even flip-flopped a few times (there is irony that Trump has fed money to Hillary's campaign before, which just, by the way, underscores my point that she has more universal appeal, when even her potential opponent has actually happily funded her before now) - could end up President.
With the Republicans imploding, now is exactly not the time for the Democrats to "experiment" with a radical socialist (okay, he's not remotely "radical" by European standards - indeed, "European socialist" is often the description used for him - but, for the already right-leaning American populous, that counts as "radical socialism" for them. It's deeply "radical" simply to be admitting you're a "socialist" at all over there).
Strategy. Even if you're non-plussed by Hillary as a Democrat, give her the ticket anyway, because she appeals more broadly and her victory would bury the Republicans in internal conflict for probably a good few elections to come (and that's when you can put up Sanders, after Hillary, because a demolished Republican party, attacking itself for being at least 12 years (possibly 16) out of power because of mad radical "Tea Party" invasion screwing everything up, will likely struggle to remain united - and be too busy trying to realign itself and get its own house in order - to pose much of a threat for several elections to come).
It's right there. On a silver platter. But the Democrats have decided to go mad too, and flirt with "socialist Sanders".
To quote Shakespeare, "I understand the fury in your words, but not the words".
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
- John Maynard Keynes
-
phattslagg
- Baaaaaa!
- Posts: 3578
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 2:04 pm 0
- Location: Worcester, England
Re: Trump
Sanders will beat Trump.
-
pogo
- Sheepie Whore
- Posts: 14180
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:28 pm 0
- Yahoo Messenger: BrassSparrow
- Location: County Durham
Re: Trump
That’s not at all certain. Trump and Sanders have a lot in common, in particular how they sit outside their parties’ mainstream, but also that they have large negatives associated with them, i.e. a large number of voters that simply won’t vote for them. It is unclear who this will benefit most.phattslagg wrote:Sanders will beat Trump.
Sanders also has yet to experience the force of negative advertising that would hit him if he were candidate. There are reasons to think it would be much worse for him than Clinton. She has been around for a while and most of the attacks on her have been tried and failed. Voters have mostly made up their minds about her.
But Sanders is a relative unknown, leaving much more room for his opponents to create their own version of him in attack adverts. He will be easy to attack, both for his extremism and for his inability to get any of his radical agenda passed with a Republican congress (not that Clinton will find it any easier but she is not promising so much). Plus he is old and a secular Jew, which will be hard to attack but will go down badly with many religious Americans.
Carly Fiorina has quit the Republican race. She was on the fringes of the race anyway, another one hoping for a miracle in New Hampshire which did not happen (she came 7th, behind Chris Christie).
-
Little stoned kiwi
- Baaaaaa!
- Posts: 4597
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:05 am 0
- Location: Christchurch
Re: Trump
One way or the other, the USA will end up with the president they deserve.
Gotta love democracy!
Gotta love democracy!
If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy.
Re: Trump
yada yada yada more standard pogology.pogo wrote:Sanders … extremism … his inability to get any of his radical agenda passed with a Republican congress
What? A YID? The very nerve. Mind you, when you compare him to the middle-aged nigger he'd be replacing or the ex-president's whore he's running against…pogo wrote:Plus he is … Jew
Really, pogo, there's a load of ways you could have worded that which wouldn't make you sound like a racist
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
-
pogo
- Sheepie Whore
- Posts: 14180
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:28 pm 0
- Yahoo Messenger: BrassSparrow
- Location: County Durham
Re: Trump
He is a Jew, that is a fact. As I wrote it will be hard to make much of directly, but there is a significant racist/nativist element in American politics, as shown by e.g. Trump’s success demonising Mexicans, Muslims and a few years ago Obama. The other problem with Sanders being a New York Jew is it conforms to the stereotype of Democrats being North-East liberals, out of touch with Middle America (i.e. the nativist South).
I’m just describing how it is, that does not make me racist you retard. If I had a vote in the November election I would vote for Sanders whoever his opponent was. But I would support Clinton in the Democratic primaries, as the candidate most likely to win against Trump or whichever clown the Republicans select.
I’m just describing how it is, that does not make me racist you retard. If I had a vote in the November election I would vote for Sanders whoever his opponent was. But I would support Clinton in the Democratic primaries, as the candidate most likely to win against Trump or whichever clown the Republicans select.
Re: Trump
There is a massive change happening in US politics that mirrors the UK to do with the political establishment losing some of their shine.
Irrespective of their chances of power the relative popularity of UKIP, a socialist Labour leader, further right wing GOP presidential candidates and a self described socialist winning a democratic caucus are all things no one would have believed less than a decade ago. See also having a coalition in 2010 and the current government's very narrow majority.
The trend is pretty obvious, wonder where it'll lead.
Irrespective of their chances of power the relative popularity of UKIP, a socialist Labour leader, further right wing GOP presidential candidates and a self described socialist winning a democratic caucus are all things no one would have believed less than a decade ago. See also having a coalition in 2010 and the current government's very narrow majority.
The trend is pretty obvious, wonder where it'll lead.
Re: Trump
pogo wrote:Sanders … extremism …
I was going to copy and paste a load more but we all know that out of the two if you're going to use "extremism" as an argument against election it's not Saunders that's looking worse for wearmeanwhile mild mannered GOP candidate Donald Trump wrote:I'll bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding
-
Little stoned kiwi
- Baaaaaa!
- Posts: 4597
- Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 6:05 am 0
- Location: Christchurch
Re: Trump
Trump victory in New Hampshire a painful reminder of state’s heroin epidemic
There's some easy pickings for satirists at the moment, they can just search for 'Trump' in Google News and remix the results.
There's some easy pickings for satirists at the moment, they can just search for 'Trump' in Google News and remix the results.
If they think you're crude, go technical; if they think you're technical, go crude. I'm a very technical boy.
Re: Trump
Ooooh, that one stung, didn't it?pogo wrote:that does not make me racist you retard
I wasn't calling you a racist, I was merely pointing out that your choice of language could (and, given the post I'm replying to, still can) be construed as such. There's an awful lot of baggage that goes with referring to the hook-nosed bastards, you need to be careful
When you write "he is a jew", it's very easy to read it as "he is A JEW", i.e. suggesting that the fact he's one of Fagin's lot is his major feature. For your original phrasing, for example, I would have suggested something like this :
"He is old, and his jewish background ..."
Words have power. Yours have less than most, I'll admit, but still...
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"
-
pogo
- Sheepie Whore
- Posts: 14180
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:28 pm 0
- Yahoo Messenger: BrassSparrow
- Location: County Durham
Re: Trump
You have to remember how nasty things got for Obama. Trump and his racist birther movement was the polite side of it. On the less polite side were things like this:
It died down, or at least moved to the fringes, pretty quickly but it was always there. Trump’s genius has been to channel this yet again for his presidential campaign. No wonder Republicans are so up in arms over him. He has brought out into the open the racist, nativist underpinnings of much of Republicanism.
And something similar could happen again with Sanders Jewishness. Especially if Trump were candidate. He has a particular talent for saying something grossly offensive but in such a way he can deny it later. E.g. his treatment of Megan Kelly, first his “blood coming out of her whatever” comment, then more recently denyably calling her a bimbo.
Imagine him doing the same to Sanders, dragging up all the anti-semitic stereotypes and slurs he can think of, but at the same time saying they are not his words/not what he would say.
It died down, or at least moved to the fringes, pretty quickly but it was always there. Trump’s genius has been to channel this yet again for his presidential campaign. No wonder Republicans are so up in arms over him. He has brought out into the open the racist, nativist underpinnings of much of Republicanism.
And something similar could happen again with Sanders Jewishness. Especially if Trump were candidate. He has a particular talent for saying something grossly offensive but in such a way he can deny it later. E.g. his treatment of Megan Kelly, first his “blood coming out of her whatever” comment, then more recently denyably calling her a bimbo.
Imagine him doing the same to Sanders, dragging up all the anti-semitic stereotypes and slurs he can think of, but at the same time saying they are not his words/not what he would say.
Re: Trump
Yeah, but I was talking about *your* choice of language.
"massive retard™", "full of shit™", "tiny bitch™", "retarted™", "a bit of a one trick pony™", "petty™", "simple minded idealistic twat™", "miserable humourless fucker™"