• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Is this some bad alternate reality like the twilight zone? Think about it for a moment. It is very likely that in November, most Americans will choose between Trump and Hillary. How messed up is it when these are the top two candidates to become the most powerful political figure on the planet.

I will not vote for either of these people. I will vote for a 3rd party candidate instead. :-@ However, if it is Trump vs Sanders, I would vote for Sanders. But if it is Hillary vs any of the others, I would vote for any of the others out of total fear of Hillary as president. I am not sure how I would vote yet if it was Sanders vs any of the others.

In the primary, I have no idea who I am going to vote for. They all suck.
 
Trump won't win the Iowa caucuses - he's too smarmy to the religious right of the party. I expect Cruz to likely win Iowa. NH? There's a lot of damn mad blue collar white Republicans that could rally Trump. From there, God help us.
 
I watched about 45 minutes of the debate last night. The winner was Fox News for giving into Trump and giving one of his charities 5 million dollars. The looser, The United States of America.

It seems I become less and less impressed with the pool of candidates every election cycle. I think that is partly why Trump is in the lead and Ben Carson is still in it. People are sick of political games, but neither Carson or Trump are the outsider that America needs. I think that Carson could be a viable candidate at some point if he finds a personality and learns about foreign policy and economics... but it would be talking a decade of learning.

Poli-tics:
Poli - many
Tics - blood sucking creatures.
 
michaelskis said:
People are sick of political games, but neither Carson or Trump are the outsider that America needs. I think that Carson could be a viable candidate at some point if he finds a personality and learns about foreign policy and economics... but it would be talking a decade of learning.

Poli-tics:
Poli - many
Tics - blood sucking creatures.
Click to expand...

We perpetuate this fallacy in politics that we need to get rid of the insiders and we need to elect outsiders. Electing an outsider is likely to doom ourselves to failure. He or she would not know how the system works or how to work toward change and working with the "insiders."

Look at it like this: You need an life-saving operation. Do you go with the surgeon who has spent years in training and actually performing surgery? Or do you hire the "outsider" who is convinced he knows a better way and assures you once he gets you open he will figure out what is what and what to do?

Or the guy up for a murder charge. Should he go with an attorney? Or maybe represent himself? Because you know how well self-representation has worked (outside of TV drama).

And once you elect an outsider, they become an insider, just one that is really inexperienced and incompetent. It will take a few years for him or her to learn the ropes.
 
otterpop said:
We perpetuate this fallacy in politics that we need to get rid of the insiders and we need to elect outsiders. Electing an outsider is likely to doom ourselves to failure. He or she would not know how the system works or how to work toward change and working with the "insiders."

Look at it like this: You need an life-saving operation. Do you go with the surgeon who has spent years in training and actually performing surgery? Or do you hire the "outsider" who is convinced he knows a better way and assures you once he gets you open he will figure out what is what and what to do?

Or the guy up for a murder charge. Should he go with an attorney? Or maybe represent himself? Because you know how well self-representation has worked (outside of TV drama).

And once you elect an outsider, they become an insider, just one that is really inexperienced and incompetent. It will take a few years for him or her to learn the ropes.
Click to expand...

You are basing this assumption that the current system works... it doesn't.

Let's look at it this way, You need a life-saving option and the only people who are willing to do it are using chainsaws and it will require amputating your legs despite they have no relevance on the condition, oh and they want to bill you as much as they can. Or the guy up for a murder charge is represented by someone who thinks you are guilty and wants you to be shot in the public square, but wants to extort as much money from you as possible.

Yes, there needs to be a good understanding of the system, and more so how to fix it. Do you know how many NASA scientists and astronauts had been to the moon before July 20, 1969? ZERO. Did it take a crap load of research and teamwork to make it happen. YES.

What is the president in all reality? He is the head of a team that works together to fulfil a predetermined agenda. Does the president know how to take apart an M16? No (well this one does not). Does he know how to operate the space shuttle? No. Should be know how to find the best people for each particular roll and advisers that will provide correct and timely information to allow a rational and qualified decision to be made in reflection of the duties as outlined in the constitution. YES.
 
So Cruz and Clinton. Trump looked bad. Rubio looked good. NH will be interesting.

Sanders had a pretty strong showing, which should scare Clinton. But it seems Clinton doesn't get scared by upcoming trouble ;)


I think Rubio is in the best place to win on the R side. If Kasich comes out and gets 2nd in NH though, I think he has a shot. I think though because of Iowa, it is a three man race. Trump should do better in NH and Rubio should do strongly. Hopefully Cruz gets 3rd or 4th.

We shall see.
 
Hink said:
So Cruz and Clinton. Trump looked bad. Rubio looked good. NH will be interesting.

Sanders had a pretty strong showing, which should scare Clinton. But it seems Clinton doesn't get scared by upcoming trouble ;)
Click to expand...

Personally, I think it was a bit rude of Iowa to hold their caucus the same week as National Signing Day - I don't appreciate the distraction from what's really important.
 
Gedunker said:
Trump won't win the Iowa caucuses - he's too smarmy to the religious right of the party. I expect Cruz to likely win Iowa. NH? There's a lot of damn mad blue collar white Republicans that could rally Trump. From there, God help us.
Click to expand...

Good call!

Hink said:
So Cruz and Clinton. Trump looked bad. Rubio looked good. NH will be interesting.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call Clinton the "winner". That side was absolutely too close to deem one or the other a clear cut winner, especially since there's some word floating about of voter fraud from the Clinton camp (although I think a lot of this comes down to Sanders supporters). Frankly, I'm very impressed with the movement Sanders has been able to drum up, especially with young voters. I just don't see him winning the big election IF he gets the Democratic nod. He couldn't possibly sway the moderate camp, he's just too far left. I'm still undecided all around, but I'm sort of intrigued with Bernie. I don't really agree with every position he's got, BUT I'm sort of at the point where I just want to say f**k it, lets try something new.

I haven't really kept track of the GOP side though. Results of the Iowa Caucus aside, how does the Cruz/Trump/Rubio battle come down? Is any of those three in a clear cut "leader" position?
 
I'm just happy to see a few more candidates drop out. It's really a race of three now. At least to me.
 
I've never seen anyone speak for so long without saying anything of substance more than Rubio...not just in his "victory" speech (really, we celebrate 3rd place now?) but in all of his ads as well (and believe me, living in NH I've seen LOTS of ads). I don't understand what anyone sees in him...all I hear are statements about 'murica and the "dream" but nothing as to how to achieve anything...
 
Hink said:
So Cruz and Clinton. Trump looked bad. Rubio looked good. NH will be interesting.

Sanders had a pretty strong showing, which should scare Clinton. But it seems Clinton doesn't get scared by upcoming trouble ;)


I think Rubio is in the best place to win on the R side. If Kasich comes out and gets 2nd in NH though, I think he has a shot. I think though because of Iowa, it is a three man race. Trump should do better in NH and Rubio should do strongly. Hopefully Cruz gets 3rd or 4th.

We shall see.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment, but I don't like any of the candidates. The only one who will actually make a difference and change things is Trump, but those changes will destroy the US.

This morning I was thinking about how divided some states are and the whole electoral college thing and the winner of the state takes all those votes. I think that it would be better the states broke it down to each district and the winner of the popular vote for the state gets the 2 senate votes. That way people outside of major metro areas feel that their vote matters.
 
michaelskis said:
I agree with your assessment, but I don't like any of the candidates. The only one who will actually make a difference and change things is Trump, but those changes will destroy the US.

This morning I was thinking about how divided some states are and the whole electoral college thing and the winner of the state takes all those votes. I think that it would be better the states broke it down to each district and the winner of the popular vote for the state gets the 2 senate votes. That way people outside of major metro areas feel that their vote matters.
Click to expand...

Great in theory, but the districts are so severely gerrymandered to create "safe" districts that it would skew the results and allow elected officials to influence the Presidential election results through the redistricting process.

Texas is a very interesting example. The gerrymandering in Texas, in addition to virtually eliminating competitive districts, actually places rural voters in a greater position of strength & representation despite the state being around 80% urbanized.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Great in theory, but the districts are so severely gerrymandered to create "safe" districts that it would skew the results and allow elected officials to influence the Presidential election results through the redistricting process.

Texas is a very interesting example. The gerrymandering in Texas, in addition to virtually eliminating competitive districts, actually places rural voters in a greater position of strength & representation despite the state being around 80% urbanized.
Click to expand...

I think it is something that both sides do. It would be better if congressional districts were drawn so that they follow municipal and county boundaries whenever possible.
 
michaelskis said:
I think it is something that both sides do. It would be better if congressional districts were drawn so that they follow municipal and county boundaries whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Republicans have mastered this in Ohio. They have removed cities and taken large swaths of rural land to get people in. The result? A state senate and house that are predominantly republican. Ohio has voted D for the last two presidential elections, but the democrats have little chance of getting a majority in the state house or senate. Because of the horribly gerrymandered districts.
 
Hink said:
Republicans have mastered this in Ohio. They have removed cities and taken large swaths of rural land to get people in. The result? A state senate and house that are predominantly republican. Ohio has voted D for the last two presidential elections, but the democrats have little chance of getting a majority in the state house or senate. Because of the horribly gerrymandered districts.
Click to expand...

See, I think that should not be permitted. Let the people speak. Large Cities can be broken into congressional districts, and areas outside could be broken into congressional districts, but to break up a City and have their votes added to rural county votes is just wrong.

Which brings up another interesting question about Urban and Rural populations and the way they vote. Why is it that more urban populations vote democrat while rural populations vote republican?


I wonder if we have gotten to the point where just a clean popular vote would be better. No electoral college at all. My vote is the exact same weight as anyone else's in America. Each election night map would become a gradient between red - purple - blue. I think it would change the way people campaign.
 
Bu Bu WHaaaa?

michaelskis said:
I wonder if we have gotten to the point where just a clean popular vote would be better. No electoral college at all. My vote is the exact same weight as anyone else's in America. Each election night map would become a gradient between red - purple - blue. I think it would change the way people campaign.
Click to expand...

Commie!! {insert hammer and sickle emoticon here} {insert Lenin emoticon here}

:-x:D;)
 
michaelskis said:
I wonder if we have gotten to the point where just a clean popular vote would be better. No electoral college at all. My vote is the exact same weight as anyone else's in America. Each election night map would become a gradient between red - purple - blue. I think it would change the way people campaign.
Click to expand...

Yea but then people wouldn't care about Iowa's politics.... ;)
 
Hink said:
Yea but then people wouldn't care about Iowa's politics.... ;)
Click to expand...

You mean I wouldn't get a call in Kansas to financially support those in Iowa who need a ride to the caucus? Don't you know how important Iowa is once every four years?
 
Hink said:
Yea but then people wouldn't care about Iowa's politics.... ;)
Click to expand...

You say that like it is a bad thing...

But that raises a whole other question, what if there were no primaries and the ballots did not list party affiliation?

(I can hear a glass hitting the marble floor in congress right now)


Can you imagine the chaos if Trump and Hillary won the nominations and Bernie decided to run as an independent. Bill would be looking for a cigar and an intern....
 
Hink said:
Republicans have mastered this in Ohio. They have removed cities and taken large swaths of rural land to get people in. The result? A state senate and house that are predominantly republican. Ohio has voted D for the last two presidential elections, but the democrats have little chance of getting a majority in the state house or senate. Because of the horribly gerrymandered districts.
Click to expand...

NC has too. Badly gerrymandered to the R side.

I was talking to my mom about this last month. I asked her to explain why there is so much R hype and why the R's have control of the house & senate, but can't win the recent presidential elections. She said she didn't know. I pointed out the senators & representatives are elected by gerrymandered partisan districts, but the presidential is elected "at large"
 
Maryland is also a huge offender of gerrymandering. But my state it was the D's doing it. Everyone in the state knows that the easter shore and western maryland are much more conservative than the middle of the state (greater Baltimore/DC metro area) and the districts that were drawn to essentially eliminate several Republican districts after the 2010 Census were downright embarassing. I mean it was seriously a joke. The new governor is an "R" but he's got a group together to make sure that kind of thing won't happen again, by/for either party.
 
I saw this example of gerrymandering the other day. Really pretty clear cut.

url


I was looking up my own voter information (wasn't aware you could do that) and checked out some of the sample ballots. On the Dem side, you can vote for "Roque Rocky De La Fuente" here in NC. He's apparently a San Diego business man. I was planning on voting in the Republican Primary since there is a commissioner race on that side I feel I need to add a vote to, but it turns out that race is in District 1. I'm District 2. I thought that Commissioner was at large, but I guess not. That's good though because now I can vote in the Democratic primary.
 
AG74683 said:
I saw this example of gerrymandering the other day. Really pretty clear cut.

url


I was looking up my own voter information (wasn't aware you could do that) and checked out some of the sample ballots. On the Dem side, you can vote for "Roque Rocky De La Fuente" here in NC. He's apparently a San Diego business man. I was planning on voting in the Republican Primary since there is a commissioner race on that side I feel I need to add a vote to, but it turns out that race is in District 1. I'm District 2. I thought that Commissioner was at large, but I guess not. That's good though because now I can vote in the Democratic primary.
Click to expand...

There is a word in that link that my computer does not like... :-{
 
michaelskis said:
I think it is something that both sides do. It would be better if congressional districts were drawn so that they follow municipal and county boundaries whenever possible.
Click to expand...

Of course that's the case... it is in both parties' best interests to create safe districts. The process of creating safe districts for one party usually results in creating safe districts for the other party as a natural consequence. Their goal is simply to create more safe ones for one party than the other and for the other's safe districts to be more marginal.

Academically, I would like to see what would happen if you actually struck straight ticket voting and removed party affiliation from the ballot. Personally, I don't like straight ticket and I don't like party affiliation listing (especially at local-level elections). While one would hope it would weaken political parties and result in better decisions, I'm concerned turnout could actually go down or other unintended consequences because people aren't willing to invest the energy to determine each person's individual platform/affiliation. I think you might also see some quiet bigotry emerge based on name origin. We already know this phenomenon exists in hiring practices, and I think that would crossover into how people cast votes in the absence of a party identifier. That may just be my cynicism shining through though.
 
The Iowa Electronic Markets opened about 10 days ago and things don't look good for either Cruz or Trump winning the nomination. It looks like Rubio is the man to beat:

2d13f2v.jpg


The "RROF" (which represents the Republican Rest of Field) should show a bit of a jump tomorrow now that one more candidate has officially dropped out (Paul dropped out earlier this morning).

I always find the IEM very interesting and they have an EXTREMELY good track record of picking the winner pretty far out in advance.

The presidential market has been open quite a bit longer, but the current market still represents an unnamed democrat v an unnamed republican:

jrqkig.jpg
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Of course that's the case... it is in both parties' best interests to create safe districts. The process of creating safe districts for one party usually results in creating safe districts for the other party as a natural consequence. Their goal is simply to create more safe ones for one party than the other and for the other's safe districts to be more marginal.

Academically, I would like to see what would happen if you actually struck straight ticket voting and removed party affiliation from the ballot. Personally, I don't like straight ticket and I don't like party affiliation listing (especially at local-level elections). While one would hope it would weaken political parties and result in better decisions, I'm concerned turnout could actually go down or other unintended consequences because people aren't willing to invest the energy to determine each person's individual platform/affiliation. I think you might also see some quiet bigotry emerge based on name origin. We already know this phenomenon exists in hiring practices, and I think that would crossover into how people cast votes in the absence of a party identifier. That may just be my cynicism shining through though.
Click to expand...

What is in the best interest of both parties is not in the best interest of the American people... and that is part of the reason the system is broken.
 
I just saw on the local news that Rick Santorum has ended his run for the White House... my first thought was, Wait... he was a candidate?
 
Planit said:
Timely article about the 1st & 12th districts in NC.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article59158418.html
Click to expand...

It is shameful that this still occurs in today's day and age.




On a different note, do you think that Hillary's camp is freaking out right now or do you think they anticipated this and will come on stronger later. I have to admit that I am surprised that people are actually voting for Trump. I want to smack them on the back of the head and ask what the hell is wrong with you?
 
michaelskis said:
It is shameful that this still occurs in today's day and age.




On a different note, do you think that Hillary's camp is freaking out right now or do you think they anticipated this and will come on stronger later. I have to admit that I am surprised that people are actually voting for Trump. I want to smack them on the back of the head and ask what the hell is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

Sanders had been leading in NH for quite a while and the population is considerably more white and more liberal than her typical base. I don't think she expected to win NH at all, but she was probably hoping it would have been a bit closer.

I think Sanders will fall away pretty quickly after SC and Nevada later this month and then Super Tuesday which has (among other states) Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Within a week after Super Tuesday you will have Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, and Mississippi. All these state have a much more diverse voter base and larger blocks of black voters which should swing pretty hard for Clinton. Even though the Democratic Party awards the delegates proportionately based on vote counts, Sanders will probably not even make much of a dent in these states. By then Clinton should probably have about ~1,300 delegates and the big states remaining will be NY, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, all of which she should also do very well in. By the time California rolls around in June with its 546 delegates, Sanders will be an also ran.
 
Clinton is probably worried to some extent because she was blown out, not just beat, in NH.

I'm in one of those more diverse Super Tuesday states (Texas)... I'm not so sure she can count on the black & hispanic vote down here like she has in the past. She barely crested 50% against Obama in 2008, and that was with more solid memories of her work with political organizing for McGovern in the 1970s down in the Rio Grande Valley. She was pretty far down in the polls in Texas back in 2008, and the Valley saved her from an embarrassing defeat. A lot of time has passed with her work becoming a more distant memory for many younger folks down there. She does have a strong San Antonio connection as well, but even that is fading to memory with the growth Texas has experienced.

I wouldn't count out Sanders too quickly. His "angry old white guy" and anti-wall street image resonates pretty well with independent voters.

Clinton needs to dust off some of the strategies & approaches used by Ann Richards when she ran for & became governor of Texas if she wants to put Sanders away. She had a talent for speaking off-the-cuff that Clinton sorely lacks, and had a great deal of believe-ability & ability to define actual platforms/proposals in a way easily understood to voters. She was easy to relate to, easily branded as a "sensible progressive." Richards had a real talent for injecting feminism into the political conversation in an inclusive way. Clinton is coming off as someone that wants the job too badly & is willing to do anything to get it. She is overly disciplined & over-managed, coming off as cold & robotic. She bends with the breeze too much, resulting in us not believing her when it comes to her saying she'll reform this or that. She has not been successful in trying to explain away some of the controversies & judgment errors. That is very off-putting and is the fundamental source of the distrust.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
Clinton is probably worried to some extent because she was blown out, not just beat, in NH.

I'm in one of those more diverse Super Tuesday states (Texas)... I'm not so sure she can count on the black & hispanic vote down here like she has in the past. She barely crested 50% against Obama in 2008, and that was with more solid memories of her work with political organizing for McGovern in the 1970s down in the Rio Grande Valley. She was pretty far down in the polls in Texas back in 2008, and the Valley saved her from an embarrassing defeat. A lot of time has passed with her work becoming a more distant memory for many younger folks down there. She does have a strong San Antonio connection as well, but even that is fading to memory with the growth Texas has experienced.

I wouldn't count out Sanders too quickly. His "angry old white guy" and anti-wall street image resonates pretty well with independent voters.

Clinton needs to dust off some of the strategies & approaches used by Ann Richards when she ran for & became governor of Texas if she wants to put Sanders away. She had a talent for speaking off-the-cuff that Clinton sorely lacks, and had a great deal of believe-ability & ability to define actual platforms/proposals in a way easily understood to voters. She was easy to relate to, easily branded as a "sensible progressive." Richards had a real talent for injecting feminism into the political conversation in an inclusive way. Clinton is coming off as someone that wants the job too badly & is willing to do anything to get it. She is overly disciplined & over-managed, coming off as cold & robotic. She bends with the breeze too much, resulting in us not believing her when it comes to her saying she'll reform this or that. She has not been successful in trying to explain away some of the controversies & judgment errors. That is very off-putting and is the fundamental source of the distrust.
Click to expand...

Eh, Clinton controls most of the super delegates already - Bernie doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination - all he can do is force Hillary to shift a little more to the left.
 
So on the R side, it was interesting. Trump pivoted a bit from Iowa and killed the field. Kasich pulls a strong second. Cruz got third, but barely. Rubio's mistakes in the debate hurt him greatly. Christie's attacks didn't get him any traction.

What this means to me:

- Christie, Fiorina, Carson are out.
- Bush, Rubio, Kasich are still in.
- If Bush, Rubio, or Kasich want to win, the other two need to get out quick.
- Cruz was brought back down to earth
- Trump is likely to win this thing

South Carolina looks like Trump again. Maybe Cruz will pull some of those tea partiers, but it doesn't look like he can win there. Another 3rd place there and he might be looking on the outside ready to sit down.

I anticipate that we will hear that Christie, Fiorina, and Carson are out later this week or early next week. The Rubio camp will be staking their entire future on South Carolina, which now looks like a very long shot.

Trump. I can't get my head around it, but I think if he wins the R nomination he will beat Clinton. President Trump. Crazy.
 
Hink said:
So on the R side, it was interesting. Trump pivoted a bit from Iowa and killed the field. Kasich pulls a strong second. Cruz got third, but barely. Rubio's mistakes in the debate hurt him greatly. Christie's attacks didn't get him any traction.

What this means to me:

- Christie, Fiorina, Carson are out.
- Bush, Rubio, Kasich are still in.
- If Bush, Rubio, or Kasich want to win, the other two need to get out quick.
- Cruz was brought back down to earth
- Trump is likely to win this thing

South Carolina looks like Trump again. Maybe Cruz will pull some of those tea partiers, but it doesn't look like he can win there. Another 3rd place there and he might be looking on the outside ready to sit down.

I anticipate that we will hear that Christie, Fiorina, and Carson are out later this week or early next week. The Rubio camp will be staking their entire future on South Carolina, which now looks like a very long shot.

Trump. I can't get my head around it, but I think if he wins the R nomination he will beat Clinton. President Trump. Crazy.
Click to expand...

Rubio is toast. No way he can recover from the debate fiasco. Christie wrecked him. Now that being said, Rubio has potential, just not now. I completely disagree with him on some points (marriage, gay rights, etc.), but it's not about what I agree with, it's about who's best for the country as a whole, and he could be in 10 years.

Bernie's chances are growing steadily. Apparently he did quite well with the minority vote in NH, and some say he should do well in Nevada too. Obama lost out to Clinton in NH last time around, but not by a significant margin.
 
The One said:
A road map for conspiracy nuts in the West:

http://www.hcn.org/issues/48.2/the-...-connections?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email
Click to expand...

Got my own network out here. They are no longer sovereign citizens. They call themselves national liberty alliance or some other garbage. It's all the same. A bunch of local nutjobs feeding off other local nuts with the power of the interwebs. And of course everything they read from fellow nuts on the webs is true. In case any "patriots" are reading this right now, if you stay on this website more than 1 minute the government begins monitoring your computer.
 
Here is my prediction....

Hillary will sweep super Tuesday and Trump will maintain a small lead and will get the nominations. The day after the DNC, Michael Bloomberg will announce that he is running as an Independant with Bernie as a running mate. They will get the endorsement of Marc Cuban as well.

Trump will win the election in November with 35% of the total vote as Bloomberg will pull a lot of votes from both Trump and Hillary, but more from Hillary because of Bernnie being on the ticket.








WWIII will start sometime in April 2017 because Trump will piss of the world. He will be impeached by January 2018 but too much damage is done, we will be in financial ruin, and America will call for another Constitutional Convention to once again restructure the government and overall form a New Government. aRubio will be appointed interim President until new elections can be held in November 2018 and party affiliation will diluted among 5 or 6 groups.
 
Bubba said:
Eh, Clinton controls most of the super delegates already - Bernie doesn't have a chance of winning the nomination - all he can do is force Hillary to shift a little more to the left.
Click to expand...

That's where I think this gets interesting. If Bernie keeps up with the regular delegates, it will put the super-delegates in a dangerous position. I've always found the super-delegate thing off-putting. Also, in the 2004 election, Howard Dean got several super-delegates before even the first primaries were held and then crashed & burned. I could see something similar here. In 2008, later super-delegates shifted allegiance to Obama over Clinton.

On another note, I am now deathly afraid that Trump will secure the nomination. I can't believe it. What's worse is that I think he could win because this whole thing is bizarro world now.
 
I think too much weight is being put on the super delegate thing. IF Bernie starts winning a lot of primaries enough of the supers will change over to him. I think the more interesting scenario is if a 3rd party candidate gets in the race and does well enough that NO candidate gets to 270 electoral votes. That would be interesting.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
On another note, I am now deathly afraid that Trump will secure the nomination. I can't believe it. What's worse is that I think he could win because this whole thing is bizarro world now.
Click to expand...

So what do we do when Trump becomes prez and decides to quit after a couple years because:

- He's tired of his new toy.
- He was just running to show that he's a winner and could be pres. Now that he's done it he doesn't have to prove anything else, at least in the pres. department.
- He won and he's not going to allow there to be an election where he could lose.
- All he really wanted was his name in the history books, done.
 
President Trump is looking like a very good possibility. That is bad enough. What it says about the citizens is worse. We're becoming a scared, miserable, and hateful lot, ready to grasp at straws because so many of us think we are drowning when in fact the water isn't up to the heels of our shoes.
 
Back
Top