2016 Presidential Election Poll No. 2

This is a silly discussion.

Kasich is anti-labor, anti-choice, anti-gun control, wants to privatize social security, dismantle Obamacare and give more tax breaks to the wealthy, but, sure, he seemed very reasonable and even tempered during the debates when compared with Cruz and Trump.

Why exactly would HRC ever consider choosing a running mate -- her Vice President for the next four years -- whose positions are polar opposite to hers and bear not even the slightest resemblance to the Democratic platform?

 

That's good to know, well worth price if you ask me.

 

To win.

She'd do anything to win.

He'd have to break with the Republican party. They wouldn't allow it. A break with the GOP might have been what he was alluding to when he said 'divorce.'

'Reasonable' and 'even tempered' ?? Cran, that's rare these days. It's probably more important than stances on particular issues.

 

HRC is going win in a landslide, Luggie. This isn't and never was going to be a close election. And the reason I said in my post that Kasich "seemed very reasonable and even tempered" during the debates was because that was just an act -- he isn't even that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/us/politics/john-kasich-campaign.html

Mr. Kasich’s colleagues in Ohio and Washington do not share that worry. In interviews, they recall a three-decade career in government punctuated by scolding confrontations, intemperate critiques and undiplomatic remarks.

How Mean Old John Kasich Became Mr. Nice

The challenge for Kasich is to overcome his legendary persona—more “Prince of Spite” than “Prince of Light,” unapologetically brusque, insensitive and even mean. Kasich once mimicked the convulsive shaking of a Parkinson’s sufferer—in his State of the State speech. He calls his own legislators “knuckleheads,” “thugs” and “bullies.” He publicly called the police officer who had given him a traffic ticket an “idiot.”

Bottom line, Kasich would need to renounce every single one of his policy positions to be deemed acceptable by Democrats.

 

I read that when it came out. It actually made me like him more.

Hope you're right about HRC, cran.

Please be right.

 

On paper, and in any normal election year, I'd agree with you.

But this year has been so unpredictable that anything is possible. Here's why I think Trump has a puncher's chance to win in November.

I've looked at this, and with two exceptions, every time since 1960 that there has been a candidate who attracts True Believers, that is, followers who are absolutely, ardently passionate about their candidate, that candidate has won the White House. The two exceptions, Goldwater in '64 and McGovern in '72, had extenuating circumstances (JFK's assassination & McGovern's total unelectability) that doomed their chances. In the other cases -- Kennedy in '60, Reagan in '80, Clinton in '92 and Obama in '08 & '12 -- when there was a nominee who had the True Believers on their side, that person won.

Like it or not, Trump has True Believers. His followers are completely oblivious to any logic about their man and shout down any objections to the man as "media hate." And there are a lot more of them than people want to admit. Trump has tapped into something ugly, but enormously powerful, white middle-class rage. These people believe they are losing "Their America," that the country is going screaming down the tubes. They are blaming anyone who is not "one of Us," and they are convinced that only Trump can save the country and, oh by the way, put "Those People," whoever they are, in their place. Trump's supporters are GOING to vote, and they're going to bring with them as many of their friends as they can muster on Election Day.

Moreover, they have the perfect opponent in Hillary Clinton. Hillary is the ultimate insider in a year when competence, compromise and experience in government is no longer seen as a virtue. Plus, she is loathed -- not just disliked or opposed, but viscerally hated -- by a significant portion of the population. Even among Democrats, she has yet to inspire any real passion, and among the Bernie Sanders crowd, she has sown active dislike and distrust. I do think Sanders will eventually endorse Clinton, but not until he gets platform concessions that could play right into Trump's hands. Even then, I think a lot of Sanders' supporters will still sit out the election just to spite Hillary.

The one salvation is that Trump has already started sabotaging his own campaign by his intemperate rhetoric, and it may well be that Hillary's best strategy will be to simply let Trump self-destruct. That, and to clearly outline concrete, workable policy ideas to contrast with the vagueness and impracticality of Trump's "ideas." I believe she got off to a good start on that with her speech today in Raleigh. I don't agree with everything she said, but the fact that she was laying it out there was what is important.

I do think Hillary is going to win, and it may well be a landslide, as you say. But with this year's electorate and with this year's opponent, if I'm a Democrat I am not taking anything for granted until the votes are counted on Nov. 8.

 

And remember: the last time Massachusetts had a special election to replace a Democratic senator, a Republican won.

Warren is not getting the VP slot.

 

Worry if you want, but Trump will struggle to get more than 40 pct. of the popular vote.

 

I suspect they were thinking of Cisneros. Castro isn't accomplished enough to have baggage.

 

He's perfect then.

 

Albert, I think you overestimate the Trump followers getting out in droves to vote for him. Some in my wife's family will, but they're much more educated than the typical Trump follower, and it's pretty true as a rule that uneducated poor whites vote in very small numbers. Sure, Trump has the pack-a-day, drink every day, unemployed, "reverse racism" voter, but those folks ain't swinging the election to him. Trump's clearly batshit crazy, and that scares enough Democrats to ensure he's never getting elected.