Projecting possibilities vs probabilities.

[Pio1980]

My take so far is that the Dems would get the WH without Hillz, the 'Pubs would take it minus Trump. The 'Pubs may be able to ride to the Oval Office on Trump's back, but not a sure thing like with another sensible serious seasoned candidate (not tea party fringe).

Here's where we go into political thriller nail biter novel conspiracy territory. Hillz is worth much more to the 'Pubs alive as a symbolic damaged goods adversary, Trump is a question mark re assurance of victory. How far would the GOP go to get this assurance?
Could he make it thru the election to nomination? Could he make it to assume office? Would he be tolerated to serve long enough to prove that he isn't the embarrassing incompetent bumbler that core Republicans take him to be?
The Secret Service certainly has a challenge with him in particular with the hostility within his own party and the animosity he has engendered outside of his inexplicably sizable fan club.

Speculating further.
If he had his druthers, considering the real risks and demands of this contest and office, I'd think that he'd prefer to have this contest in his resume' as a close could-have-been and cash it out with Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon heading a new Trump news media empire to eclipse Fox. Much safer and far more lucrative there for him than the position he has presently established as a person worth more to his party 'in the past tense', with a far more electable candidate to oppose the damaged Dem contender.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[donquixote99]

There is likewise incentive for partisans on the left, who see Hillary as the Trump-enabler, to remove her from contention, perhaps in the wishful expectation that Sanders would be appointed as her replacement.

We of course must hope for none of this; our poor democracy is having a rough season already.

[Pio1980]

I've considered that as well. If Sanders was electable, he'd be the candidate. He's not and he's not. Hillz is pretty much in for the duration as I see it, there's little incentive to replace her at this time, and, at least, she knows the job.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[icenine]

The problem with a Trump Presidency (aside from all the obvious ones) is he may end up being a cipher (or a catspaw if you have read Game of Thrones) for his children, who may end up running the show. I think Donald Jr may be more dangerous than his father.

Trump may see the Presidency as a chance to make money WHILE he is President.

[Dondilion]

at least, she knows the job.


Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Could you expand.

[Pio1980]

Could you expand.

First, her husband served as POTUS with her presence. Second, she served as Secretary of State.
Trump either hasn't a clue of the responsibilities of the office, or is playing the fool for unknown reasons. Either way he is evidently unqualified and unfit to serve the office, regardless of popular acclaimation.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[icenine]

Could you expand.

I think Trump's notion of replacing all his generals like a cheap Polaroid sunglasses adorned Banana Republic dictator is probably expansion enough.

[Rajoo]

Fuzzy logic at best here.

Trump beat out 16 other contenders within the Republican party, yet he is a demon and has been appropriately and aggressively demonized, even by the Republicans. Even so, here he is running neck and neck with Hillary while spending less that 5% of what Hillary is spending. How could this happen and this needs to be answered first. Incessantly dumping on Trump by the Dem's seems to have the opposite effect; you can ask Hillary and her team how that's going.

Hillary was chosen as the Democratic nominee way before the primaries by the DNC knowing fully well that she is at best a weak candidate. Why did the DNC even allow Sanders to run as a Democrat? All this did was stir up the opposition within her own party with nearly 50% opposing her.

Hillary is perpetually shrouded in controversies (go ahead, ask me for proof :rolleyes:). The skeletons in her closet would always have been a gift to her opponent. When one is perpetually fighting for one's credibility, how can you campaign and this is the reason why Hillary has been in hiding.

So here we are stuck with two of the worst candidates for presidency and the electorate at this time has become very lethargic and unpredictable, as in who is going to show up to vote. Establishment types do not want to vote for Trump, progressives will never be for Hillary even if some are promising to close their noses.

I for one will always believe that the DNC cheated the Democrats by not holding fair primary elections. I expect to be challenged on this too. Remember if one does not have answers best you can do is to challenge the question, the questioner, their mental health.............never ends except getting to an answer.

[Dondilion]

First, her husband served as POTUS with her presence. Second, she served as Secretary of State.
Trump either hasn't a clue of the responsibilities of the office, or is playing the fool for unknown reasons. Either way he is evidently unqualified and unfit to serve the office, regardless of popular acclaimation.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Her husband served as POTUS. She did not.

As Secretary of State she is identified with a major failure - Libya, which the President has publicly described as his biggest mistake.

Trump gives the impression that he would be woefully inadequate.

However to state that the Lady "knows the job" is to be very generous.

[icenine]

Fuzzy logic at best here.

Trump beat out 16 other contenders within the Republican party, yet he is a demon and has been appropriately and aggressively demonized, even by the Republicans. Even so, here he is running neck and neck with Hillary while spending less that 5% of what Hillary is spending. How could this happen and this needs to be answered first. Incessantly dumping on Trump by the Dem's seems to have the opposite effect; you can ask Hillary and her team how that's going.

Hillary was chosen as the Democratic nominee way before the primaries by the DNC knowing fully well that she is at best a weak candidate. Why did the DNC even allow Sanders to run as a Democrat? All this did was stir up the opposition within her own party with nearly 50% opposing her.

Hillary is perpetually shrouded in controversies (go ahead, ask me for proof :rolleyes:). The skeletons in her closet would always have been a gift to her opponent. When one is perpetually fighting for one's credibility, how can you campaign and this is the reason why Hillary has been in hiding.

So here we are stuck with two of the worst candidates for presidency and the electorate at this time has become very lethargic and unpredictable, as in who is going to show up to vote. Establishment types do not want to vote for Trump, progressives will never be for Hillary even if some are promising to close their noses.

I for one will always believe that the DNC cheated the Democrats by not holding fair primary elections. I expect to be challenged on this too. Remember if one does not have answers best you can do is to challenge the question, the questioner, their mental health.............never ends except getting to an answer.


You might as well vote for Trump then.

Sanders does not matter now, even if you were correct in all your beliefs.

And Sanders made the point to run as a Democrat, not the DNC. He would not have won one primary running on a third party platform. He was taking strategic advantage of the Democratic establishment.

You are under the assumption that there is a huge progressive voting bloc out there. There isn't. The last three true progressives where LBJ, Truman and FDR, all were Democrats who were adept at establishment politics and took advantage of political machinery to get things done.

[Pio1980]

Lacking a crystal ball, Lybia was yet another Middle East foreign policy festival of unintended consequences.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[merrylander]

You might as well vote for Trump then.

Sanders does not matter now, even if you were correct in all your beliefs.

And Sanders made the point to run as a Democrat, not the DNC. He would not have won one primary running on a third party platform. He was taking strategic advantage of the Democratic establishment.

You are under the assumption that there is a huge progressive voting bloc out there. There isn't. The last three true progressives where LBJ, Truman and FDR, all were Democrats who were adept at establishment politics and took advantage of political machinery to get things done.

And according to that Atlantic article the public demand for effing transparency destroyed that political machinery and that is where American politics became insane. With no political parties government as envisaged by the Constitution could work. With two (or more) political parties sans the political machinery it cannot work.

[donquixote99]

There have always been parties, and there always will be. The 'unity' produced by fighting together in the revolution for independence was melting away even as the founders labored away with their founding. And you can be sure that prospective vote counting by factions much influenced the ultimate design.

[Rajoo]

You might as well vote for Trump then.

Sanders does not matter now, even if you were correct in all your beliefs.

And Sanders made the point to run as a Democrat, not the DNC. He would not have won one primary running on a third party platform. He was taking strategic advantage of the Democratic establishment.

You are under the assumption that there is a huge progressive voting bloc out there. There isn't. The last three true progressives where LBJ, Truman and FDR, all were Democrats who were adept at establishment politics and took advantage of political machinery to get things done.

With that comment you proved my fuzzy logic theory.

Suggesting that I vote from Trump is in effect far worse than suggesting that I vote for Hillary, since you believe that she is better qualified. Sort of like a dare and childish.

I am on record here that nothing can or would entice me to vote for Trump.

[donquixote99]

Every Hillary-bash is, in effect, a kiss for Trump, whether you intend that effect or not.

Now is not the time for it.

[icenine]

With that comment you proved my fuzzy logic theory.

Suggesting that I vote from Trump is in effect far worse than suggesting that I vote for Hillary, since you believe that she is better qualified. Sort of like a dare and childish.

I am on record here that nothing can or would entice me to vote for Trump.

You are like a guy fighting Godzilla when your bazooka gets jammed.
Instead of picking up the rocket launcher at your feet you start kicking it blaming it for the bazooka being broke.

[whell]

Here's where we go into political thriller nail biter novel conspiracy territory. Hillz is worth much more to the 'Pubs alive as a symbolic damaged goods adversary, Trump is a question mark re assurance of victory. How far would the GOP go to get this assurance?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Nah. Quite the contrary. Just for sake of discussion, let's say that the unlikely happens and Hillary can't overcome her health issues and has to drop out of the race. The Dems elevate Tim Kaine to continue the battle.

I'd think that Trump would LOVE to run against Kaine. Trump would be able to campaign like Trump - in his comfort zone saying what he wants without worrying about "looking mean" to Hillary fans.

[Rajoo]

You are like a guy fighting Godzilla when your bazooka gets jammed.
Instead of picking up the rocket launcher at your feet you start kicking it blaming it for the bazooka being broke.

Godzilla, bazooka? Shows your readiness for discussions with adults. :rolleyes:

[Rajoo]

Every Hillary-bash is, in effect, a kiss for Trump, whether you intend that effect or not.

Now is not the time for it.

No comment but you should know what I am thinking. I have declared a truce and intend to hold it.

[Pio1980]

Nah. Quite the contrary. Just for sake of discussion, let's say that the unlikely happens and Hillary can't overcome her health issues and has to drop out of the race. The Dems elevate Tim Kaine to continue the battle.

I'd think that Trump would LOVE to run against Kaine. Trump would be able to campaign like Trump - in his comfort zone saying what he wants without worrying about "looking mean" to Hillary fans.

Kaine is a more attractive candidate and seasoned pol than Hillz, Trump is only viable with her as the opposition. Trump's uninformed populist bloviation, namecalling, and gainsaying isn't a debate technique and generally doesn't survive fact checking. It does continue to make him look the fool with it's puerile selfserving hyperbole and fact - starved basis.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Pio1980]

Trump apparently is now demanding unmoderated debates. No adult supervision or fact - checking for crybaby Don.

[icenine]

Nah. Quite the contrary. Just for sake of discussion, let's say that the unlikely happens and Hillary can't overcome her health issues and has to drop out of the race. The Dems elevate Tim Kaine to continue the battle.

I'd think that Trump would LOVE to run against Kaine. Trump would be able to campaign like Trump - in his comfort zone saying what he wants without worrying about "looking mean" to Hillary fans.

Kaine gets Virginia and possibly Arizona. Colorado and New Mexico will easily go to Kaine also.

[Tom Joad]

Every Hillary-bash is, in effect, a kiss for Trump, whether you intend that effect or not.

Now is not the time for it.


"Freedom of Speech! Just watch what you say."

Ice-T

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iceberg/Freedom_of_Speech..._Just_Watch_What_You_Say!

[whell]

Kaine is a more attractive candidate and seasoned pol than Hillz, Trump is only viable with her as the opposition. Trump's uninformed populist bloviation, namecalling, and gainsaying isn't a debate technique and generally doesn't survive fact checking. It does continue to make him look the fool with it's puerile selfserving hyperbole and fact - starved basis.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Balogna. :rolleyes:

[whell]

Trump apparently is now demanding unmoderated debates. No adult supervision or fact - checking for crybaby Don.

It's not the debate moderators job to "fact check".

[donquixote99]

It's not the debate moderators job to "fact check".

No? What is better for society, to let the whoppers fly by, or no?

[Rajoo]

It's not the debate moderators job to "fact check".

Who said so? :confused:
Or do your prescribe to the "we report, you decide" mantra?

[Boreas]

Balogna. :rolleyes:

It's Bologna, or baloney, not Balogna

http://i.imgur.com/24JfCE3.jpg

[Pio1980]

It's not the debate moderators job to "fact check".

And why not?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Pio1980]

Balogna. :rolleyes:

How so? It's as accurate an analysis as can be made on those factors.
Trump basically vascillates between bully, crybaby, and making stuff up on the fly.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[merrylander]

I for one will always believe that the DNC cheated the Democrats by not holding fair primary elections. I expect to be challenged on this too. Remember if one does not have answers best you can do is to challenge the question, the questioner, their mental health.............never ends except getting to an answer.

Raj the Constitution only speaks to general elections. Primaries are no different than the party meetings in Parliamentary systems where selected people meet to elect the party leader. These people are selected (voted in) by local party members. So whichever party gets the most seats its leader becomes Prime Minister.

The constitution does not speak to Primaries in any way shape or form. Don't forget that the Framers of the Constitution did not believe in political parties. Those states where everyone is allowed to vote in the Primaries defeat the whole purpose of holding them in the first place.

Back home I got to vote for the people who were to select the party leader simply because I was a card carrying member of the Conservative Party - the Joe Clark version certainly not the Stephen Harper one.;)

[Oerets]

This campaign started with an anointed one on one side and a buffoon in a group of contenders on the other. The buffoon sucked all the attention by a media all wanting to be the one with a wild new sound bite for the next news cycle.
The primaries had the anointed one up against a serious contender. But we will never know just how serious with the race already being decided by the party in advance. The other party had a big pack with only one getting all the attention, the others always a few steps behind. The winner was able to use media hate and fear to coalesce a winning majority.

With the media still wanting a close horse race and thus giving constant 24/7 coverage. I see this as a media driven not an issue drive campaign. With that said the more media smart candidate will be the one to beat.

Barney

[Pio1980]

This campaign started with an anointed one on one side and a buffoon in a group of contenders on the other. The buffoon sucked all the attention by a media all wanting to be the one with a wild new sound bite for the next news cycle.
The primaries had the anointed one up against a serious contender. But we will never know just how serious with the race already being decided by the party in advance. The other party had a big pack with only one getting all the attention, the others always a few steps behind. The winner was able to use media hate and fear to coalesce a winning majority.

With the media still wanting a close horse race and thus giving constant 24/7 coverage. I see this as a media driven not an issue drive campaign. With that said the more media smart candidate will be the one to beat.

Barney

That would be the populist demagogue (ugh!).

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Oerets]

That would be the populist demagogue (ugh!).

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Until the media and undecided voting populace start asking and requiring answers equally from both candidates. Calling out BS whenever offered up as facts, to the candidate face. Pushing for an answer. An unequal playing field will be the norm. One candidate must answer in minute detail over and over the other get as pass or worse a chuckle and a shrug.

The media as a whole has been milking this and feeding the frenzy all for financial rewards.

Barney