The 2016 US Presidential Election

[Fotbawmad]

So your essentially going for the martingale approach, with a separate bet. So you want to roll it over to November where either I'm due you a tenner, or you're due thirty?

[FlyerTon]

Some twitter rumours that Trump might have upset Cruz down in Texas. Would be a major upset if true.

Cruz has taken Texas.

[FlyerTon]

I haven't spoken to anybody that expects anything other than Trump v Clinton for a very long time

Oddschecker now have it basically just those two now in the running. Hilary Clinton still odds on, but Donald Trump odds have shortened.

http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

[Savage Henry]

He is strikingly similar to Will Ferrell's character in the campaign, basically the republican electorate in America are the lowest of the low, in terms of intelligence and character, throw in some patriotic rhetoric, a couple of praise Jesus and state things as fact that even you don't believe and you can win as a republican. Is it just me who when a republican writes 'anti PC agenda' reads 'mouth foaming xenophobia and intolerance'?

No. Not just you. "PC Agenda" is coda for "people who hold a different opinion which I can't argue against."

I see people, largely on the right, speculating about Sanders supporters switching to Trump.

That isn't going to happen. It's going to be 1. Clinton. 2. Apathy. 3. Trump.

[Yank Mike]

No. Not just you. "PC Agenda" is coda for "people who hold a different opinion which I can't argue against."

I see people, largely on the right, speculating about Sanders supporters switching to Trump.

That isn't going to happen. It's going to be 1. Clinton. 2. Apathy. 3. Trump.

And people on the other side would say that PC is an excuse to shut down a debate that radical leftists can't win, seeks to put certain collective issues outside of our democratic control, and distracts from larger issues that don't fit the correct ideological narrative.

I do agree that not many Sanders people with go to Trump. He seems to draw almost exclusively from far lefty whites. Those folks will sit home or vote for Hillary. In contrast, I'd be more concerned that Trump voters will vote Democrat if Trump isn't the nominee since he draws across the ideological spectrum from slightly left of center to very conservative. He does best with Republicans who describe themselves as moderate or not very conservative.

[welshbairn]

So your essentially going for the martingale approach, with a separate bet. So you want to roll it over to November where either I'm due you a tenner, or you're due thirty?

Good point. How about this, I pay £20 if Trump becomes President, you pay £20 if he doesn't. I'm still not convinced he'll win the nomination.

[Yank Mike]

He's trolling America, stirring up hatred, and I don't think he even wants to be President. It's an ego thing. And he's playing it exactly like Hitler and Mussolini did, prey on people's resentment that their lives haven't gone too well and blame it on someone else, Mexicans, Koreans, Blacks, Chinese, Jews, whatever. But he promises America will be great again without any indication of how. There you go Mike!

Look, I get where you're coming from in that Trump represents the radical center, appeals to the working and middle class folks, opposes a supposedly corrupt and unpatriotic elite, and uses nationalist rhetoric. It comes from a similar impulse as fascism in Europe. However, the USA has had this exact political tradition for hundreds of years since the early Republic / revolution. The tradition Trump is drawing on far precedes European fascism and fits clearly in the liberal, democratic, and capitalist category. The Jacksonian strain in American politics has sometimes rubbed up against nativism (not always a bad thing) and racism (always a bad thing), but it is very different from European fascism.

And from a more specific perspective, your comparison is ridiculous. Trump is openly attempting to beat Reagan's modern record for black Republican votes, and pollsters and black journalists are starting to say this is looking possible in the general election. Trump is openly claiming that he will do better with Hispanic American citizens than any other Republican candidate. And I hope it's not necessary to point out that Trump is not going to engage in genocide or wars of racial conquest.

[Yank Mike]

In my experience you get much more racist paranoia in low immigration areas than high. Just to be clear.

From my personal experience, there's a huge class gap and a huge age gap in immigration views in high immigration areas. In low immigration areas this gap does not exist and it's hard to predict how individual people will feel about the issue based on their demographic. And by the age gap I don't mean that people will keep their views through life on this issue, like with homosexuality. I mean more along the lines of young people are lefty and older folks are right wing based on a changing view of the issue as they go through life.

Also, in a democratic society I don't think it's necessarily wrong for folks in low immigration areas to see voting and cultural trends in the high immigration areas and decide that they don't want any more immigration.

[banana]

And people on the other side would say that PC is an excuse to shut down a debate that radical leftists can't win, seeks to put certain collective issues outside of our democratic control, and distracts from larger issues that don't fit the correct ideological narrative.

+1, and it's not only the radical part of the left, this silencing has unfortunately become somewhat mainstream left.

As always, some utterly bizarre and seemingly intentional ignorance in here about why people are planning to vote for Trump, or any Republican it seems.

[Yank Mike]

You may find it bizarre however I find it utterly bizarre someone would vote for a politician who peddles hate to win votes and won't denounce support from racist organisations like the KKK. The only people who will vote for Trump are internalists who are happy to see people living on the street, bombing terrorists families and view something as fundamentally right as universal healthcare as 'lefty extremism'. I'd never feel less angry about people who vote republican or Tory over here, but let's face it if they would just admit they're selfish xenophobics then I'd at least have a slightly bit more respect for them.

Uh, he condemned the KKK in multiple interviews throughout his campaign. In this instance he said he didn't understand who he was being asked about and wasn't going to condemn people without knowing. The media actively covered up Obama ties to racist black groups and certainly did not ask him about them in every interview. And Obama had actual ties, not just support.

Trump supports universal health care.

And if you look at the statistics, Republicans donate far more time and money to charity than Democrats. And the USA is always at the top level of personal giving to charity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

Myanmar 1 1 2 United States 2 1 1 New Zealand 3 5 2 Canada 4 3 2 Australia 5 6 7 United Kingdom 6 7 6 Netherlands 7 12 8 Sri Lanka 8 9 10 Ireland 9 4 5 Malaysia 10 7 71

[Savage Henry]

And people on the other side would say that PC is an excuse to shut down a debate that radical leftists can't win, seeks to put certain collective issues outside of our democratic control, and distracts from larger issues that don't fit the correct ideological narrative.

I do agree that not many Sanders people with go to Trump. He seems to draw almost exclusively from far lefty whites. Those folks will sit home or vote for Hillary. In contrast, I'd be more concerned that Trump voters will vote Democrat if Trump isn't the nominee since he draws across the ideological spectrum from slightly left of center to very conservative. He does best with Republicans who describe themselves as moderate or not very conservative.

Indeed. They might well argue that, which is fine as far as it goes, but if the whole notion of political correctness is exposed as a myth - as it manifestly is; nobody has ever been "banned" from singing Baa Baa Black Sheep or saying Happy Christmas, then that doesn't really follow. You get stupid attempts at censorship, but that's not what people are getting at when they complain about a PC agenda.

For one thing, there are no "radical leftists" or "far lefty whites" participating in this election, or at least not on a national/international level. Sanders is, at most, a democratic socialist. There is not a single issue that he campaigns on that is remotely radical or far left, whereas Trump's immigration policy is unreconstructed racism. His attitude to the physically disabled is abhorrent, and he's basically just a rich guy with a loud mouth. I wouldn't vote for a non politician to be prime minister; the idea of Donald Trump being president is bizarre at best.

Quoting from Wikipedia isn't really any way to present an argument, for what it's worth, but Donald Trump claimed to know nothing about David Duke. Which I don't believe for an instant. The case of Obama's racist supporters doesn't really wash either - he stopped attending his last church after comments by the minister/preacher there.

[strichener]

Uh, he condemned the KKK in multiple interviews throughout his campaign. In this instance he said he didn't understand who he was being asked about and wasn't going to condemn people without knowing. The media actively covered up Obama ties to racist black groups and certainly did not ask him about them in every interview. And Obama had actual ties, not just support.

Trump supports universal health care.

And if you look at the statistics, Republicans donate far more time and money to charity than Democrats. And the USA is always at the top level of personal giving to charity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index Myanmar 1 1 2 United States 2 1 1 New Zealand 3 5 2 Canada 4 3 2 Australia 5 6 7 United Kingdom 6 7 6 Netherlands 7 12 8 Sri Lanka 8 9 10 Ireland 9 4 5 Malaysia 10 7 71

Given the ease with which single interest groups and commercial entities in the US can achieve charitable status, I am not surprised at this index. Anyone donating to the NRA foundation??? The entire index has a sample size of 150,000 with 1,000 telephoned (see a bias there?) in the US. In short the index is shit.

[strichener]

Just to clarify something spouted on this thread. There is no such thing as the radical left in this race.

[welshbairn]

Indeed. They might well argue that, which is fine as far as it goes, but if the whole notion of political correctness is exposed as a myth - as it manifestly is; nobody has ever been "banned" from singing Baa Baa Black Sheep or saying Happy Christmas, then that doesn't really follow. You get stupid attempts at censorship, but that's not what people are getting at when they complain about a PC agenda.

For one thing, there are no "radical leftists" or "far lefty whites" participating in this election, or at least not on a national/international level. Sanders is, at most, a democratic socialist. There is not a single issue that he campaigns on that is remotely radical or far left, whereas Trump's immigration policy is unreconstructed racism. His attitude to the physically disabled is abhorrent, and he's basically just a rich guy with a loud mouth. I wouldn't vote for a non politician to be prime minister; the idea of Donald Trump being president is bizarre at best.

Quoting from Wikipedia isn't really any way to present an argument, for what it's worth, but Donald Trump claimed to know nothing about David Duke. Which I don't believe for an instant. The case of Obama's racist supporters doesn't really wash either - he stopped attending his last church after comments by the minister/preacher there.

You can add women to the list, complaining that Megyn Kelly must have had "blood coming out of her wherever" when she asked him some awkward questions shows you the class of the man.

[Bishop Briggs]

Just to clarify something spouted on this thread. There is no such thing as the radical left in this race.

The radical left has little or no base in the United States. A radical left candidate would have no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Even Ralph Nader did very badly when he ran for the Green Party. The American electoral system, especially ballot access, is rigged in favour of the two main parties. The big donors and well funded lobby groups spend fortunes to ensure that radical candidates lose.

[welshbairn]

Looking at the Super Tuesday results Trump averaged 35%. I know he would get some of the votes from candidates who pull out but I think most of them would go to a single anti-Trump candidate. I don't think his nomination is a done deal yet, but it's beginning to look like the only alternative to Trump will be Cruz who's almost as vile as Trump, especially if Rubio loses in Florida.

[Yank Mike]

Indeed. They might well argue that, which is fine as far as it goes, but if the whole notion of political correctness is exposed as a myth - as it manifestly is; nobody has ever been "banned" from singing Baa Baa Black Sheep or saying Happy Christmas, then that doesn't really follow. You get stupid attempts at censorship, but that's not what people are getting at when they complain about a PC agenda.

For one thing, there are no "radical leftists" or "far lefty whites" participating in this election, or at least not on a national/international level. Sanders is, at most, a democratic socialist. There is not a single issue that he campaigns on that is remotely radical or far left, whereas Trump's immigration policy is unreconstructed racism. His attitude to the physically disabled is abhorrent, and he's basically just a rich guy with a loud mouth. I wouldn't vote for a non politician to be prime minister; the idea of Donald Trump being president is bizarre at best.

Quoting from Wikipedia isn't really any way to present an argument, for what it's worth, but Donald Trump claimed to know nothing about David Duke. Which I don't believe for an instant. The case of Obama's racist supporters doesn't really wash either - he stopped attending his last church after comments by the minister/preacher there.

First paragraph:

There are many recent incidents of extreme political correctness in the mainstream society.

The most prominent is conservative leaders in Indiana and Arkansas backing down from religious freedom statutes which would have stopped court rulings forcing participation in gay weddings, as has happened in numerous states. This is despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of people supported these statutes. Corporations such as Wal Mart, Apple, and NCAA college sports threatened boycotts and the Republican leadership backed down. Apple had just opened a new store in Saudi Arabia, by the way. No leftist organization decried the influence of major corporations over democratic will. And even if you believe people should be forced to attend a religious ceremony with which they disagree as a condition of owning a business, shouldn't this be left up to democracy rather than an elite cultural and business oligarchy?

Second paragraph:

Former friends of Bernie have given plenty of interviews where they state his complete understanding and support of Marxist economics.

Third paragraph:

Search any index of charitable giving and you will find the USA at the top or near the top. Search any index and you will find Republicans above Democrats within the USA.

Obama did not stop attending his church. He claimed to not have been present during those specific sermons. The official magazine of Obama's church gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, who heads a religion which says white people were the creation of an evil geneticist and that their time of world domination in near the end. Obama's white communist grandfather introduced him to Frank Marshall Davis, a black nationalist, for mentoring when Obama was young and had been sent home from Indonesia. Obama admits in his book he hung out with radical black separatists while in college. This isn't to say that Obama is a racist, but it's more than mishearing a question.

[Yank Mike]

The radical left has little or no base in the United States. A radical left candidate would have no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Even Ralph Nader did very badly when he ran for the Green Party. The American electoral system, especially ballot access, is rigged in favour of the two main parties. The big donors and well funded lobby groups spend fortunes to ensure that radical candidates lose.

Jeb Bush spent over a hundred million dollars and Donald Trump has spend the least amount of any major Republican candidate. Bernie Sanders is competitive with Clinton in total funds raised.

And yes, the democratic primary process is much less receptive to the desires of ordinary folks than the British system of choosing party leaders.

Perhaps the radical left has little or no base because the USA had democratically rejected the radical left whenever possible. Hence PC.

[renton]

Jeb Bush spent over a hundred million dollars and Donald Trump has spend the least amount of any major Republican candidate. Bernie Sanders is competitive with Clinton in total funds raised.

And yes, the democratic primary process is much less receptive to the desires of ordinary folks than the British system of choosing party leaders.

Perhaps the radical left has little or no base because the USA had democratically rejected the radical left whenever possible. Hence PC.

Behave. The American idea of the 'radical left' is the fucking British Conservative party.

[Bishop Briggs]

Looking at the Super Tuesday results Trump averaged 35%. I know he would get some of the votes from candidates who pull out but I think most of them would go to a single anti-Trump candidate. I don't think his nomination is a done deal yet, but it's beginning to look like the only alternative to Trump will be Cruz who's almost as vile as Trump, especially if Rubio loses in Florida.

The polls show that Trump has a big lead over Rubio in Florida. Only Cruz can beat Trump now and his chances are poor.

Jeb Bush spent over a hundred million dollars and Donald Trump has spend the least amount of any major Republican candidate. Bernie Sanders is competitive with Clinton in total funds raised.

And yes, the democratic primary process is much less receptive to the desires of ordinary folks than the British system of choosing party leaders.

Perhaps the radical left has little or no base because the USA had democratically rejected the radical left whenever possible. Hence PC.

The Bush brand is tainted. Trump has the benefit of national name recognition and massive media exposure which has been worth a fortune.