Legitimate criticisms of each 2016 Presidential Candidate

[DeltaBond]

Any third party candidates surfacing?

[Jeremy E.]

Any third party candidates surfacing?

Gary Johnson, Bloomberg maybe?

[infogoon]

Any third party candidates surfacing?

Jill Stein is running as the Green nominee again. I imagine she'll siphon off a share of Bernie supporters if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination.

[Jeremy E.]

Trump is spiraling down,
first his campaign manager gets in trouble,
then he says he won't support repub nom unless it's him,
then he says women should be punished for having abortions, backpedals and says he didn't mean that,
puts an unflattering picture up of Cruz's wife and get's castrated for it,
and to top it all off he has no chance in Wisconsin.
All of this in 1 week. Republican nominee predictions went from thinking Trump had an 80% chance to a 59% chance so far this week.

[MoonShadow]

Trump is spiraling down,
first his campaign manager gets in trouble,
then he says he won't support repub nom unless it's him,
then he says women should be punished for having abortions, backpedals and says he didn't mean that,
puts an unflattering picture up of Cruz's wife and get's castrated for it,
and to top it all off he has no chance in Wisconsin.
All of this in 1 week. Republican nominee predictions went from thinking Trump had an 80% chance to a 59% chance so far this week.

So, are you open to that wager, then?

[Jack]

Any third party candidates surfacing?

Jill Stein is running as the Green nominee again. I imagine she'll siphon off a share of Bernie supporters if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination.

... in states where the Green Party is on the ballot (which hasn't normally included mine, as far as I remember).

[LeRainDrop]

Any third party candidates surfacing?

Jill Stein is running as the Green nominee again. I imagine she'll siphon off a share of Bernie supporters if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination.

... in states where the Green Party is on the ballot (which hasn't normally included mine, as far as I remember).

You're right that they were not on the Georgia ballot in 2012 or 2008, at a minimum.  Things are changing this year.  See here:  http://www.gp.org/green_presidential_candidate_to_be_on_2016_georgia_ballot

[Jeremy E.]

Trump is spiraling down,
first his campaign manager gets in trouble,
then he says he won't support repub nom unless it's him,
then he says women should be punished for having abortions, backpedals and says he didn't mean that,
puts an unflattering picture up of Cruz's wife and get's castrated for it,
and to top it all off he has no chance in Wisconsin.
All of this in 1 week. Republican nominee predictions went from thinking Trump had an 80% chance to a 59% chance so far this week.

So, are you open to that wager, then?

If you think Trump will be president, you can get 5.5 to 1 odds making that bet
no reason to bet me 1 to 1 odds

[golden1]

Honestly I am getting Drumpf fatigue.  I don't even react emotionally to anything that he posts anymore. 

As an aside, I don't get why the pro-life candidates who aren't Drumpf are getting their knickers in a twist about Drumpf saying that women should be punished for getting an abortion.  I mean, if you are pro-life, wouldn't that be the natural conclusion to banning abortion and giving a fetus personhood?  If you make it illegal, and a woman gets an abortion, she is committing homicide by definition.  He is just connecting the dots. 

[Jeremy E.]

Reagan had to accept George Bush, Sr. as his running mate to satisfy the party establishment & pre-empt a brokered convention.  The repubs still had their own version of the super-delegates that are currently plaguing Bernie Sanders in 1980, and contrary to popular liberal belief, Reagan was not stupid.  He knew he would have to pick an establishment running mate to keep the super-delegates from revolt.  Trump will have to do something similar, and I suspect that Kasich is still in this race because he wants to be that establishment 'bone'.  Kasich is in a good position for this, since he is a popular former governor of an important swing state.  This would quiet most of the establishment objections, since it comes with an implicit threat should Trump wander too far from the establishment reservation.

Kasich has said he would be the worst VP ever, that if he doesn't get pres, he'll just continue governing Ohio for the rest of his term. When asked if he'll support Trump if he get's the nomination, he neither confirms nor denies, making me think he would probably not support Trump, let alone be his VP

[Jeremy E.]

Honestly I am getting Drumpf fatigue.  I don't even react emotionally to anything that he posts anymore. 

As an aside, I don't get why the pro-life candidates who aren't Drumpf are getting their knickers in a twist about Drumpf saying that women should be punished for getting an abortion.  I mean, if you are pro-life, wouldn't that be the natural conclusion to banning abortion and giving a fetus personhood?  If you make it illegal, and a woman gets an abortion, she is committing homicide by definition.  He is just connecting the dots.

They think in this situation, the women is victim of abortion clinics because they are messed up in the head.

[MDM]

...if you are pro-life, wouldn't that be the natural conclusion to banning abortion and giving a fetus personhood?

As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman.  Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.

[Gin1984]

...if you are pro-life, wouldn't that be the natural conclusion to banning abortion and giving a fetus personhood?

As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman.  Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.

Except that is not what happens.  Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions.  He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying). 
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/

[dramaman]

...if you are pro-life, wouldn't that be the natural conclusion to banning abortion and giving a fetus personhood?

As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman.  Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.

Except that is not what happens.  Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions.  He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying). 
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/

Shhh. You're not supposed to point out these kinds of inconsistencies in the pro-life positions. Repeat after me - Abortion victimizes Women and Pro-Life means Pro-Woman. Abortion victimizes Women and Pro-Life means Pro-Woman.  Abortion victimizes Women and Pro-Life means Pro-Woman.

[MoonShadow]

Reagan had to accept George Bush, Sr. as his running mate to satisfy the party establishment & pre-empt a brokered convention.  The repubs still had their own version of the super-delegates that are currently plaguing Bernie Sanders in 1980, and contrary to popular liberal belief, Reagan was not stupid.  He knew he would have to pick an establishment running mate to keep the super-delegates from revolt.  Trump will have to do something similar, and I suspect that Kasich is still in this race because he wants to be that establishment 'bone'.  Kasich is in a good position for this, since he is a popular former governor of an important swing state.  This would quiet most of the establishment objections, since it comes with an implicit threat should Trump wander too far from the establishment reservation.

Kasich has said he would be the worst VP ever, that if he doesn't get pres, he'll just continue governing Ohio for the rest of his term. When asked if he'll support Trump if he get's the nomination, he neither confirms nor denies, making me think he would probably not support Trump, let alone be his VP

I don't put too much faith, or any faith, in what they actually say.  Paul Ryan was quoted as saying that he wouldn't accept the Speakership, only two weeks before accepting the speakership.  That fact has been brought up recently with his denial that he could present himself as an alternative nominee during a contested convention.

[Jeremy E.]

Reagan had to accept George Bush, Sr. as his running mate to satisfy the party establishment & pre-empt a brokered convention.  The repubs still had their own version of the super-delegates that are currently plaguing Bernie Sanders in 1980, and contrary to popular liberal belief, Reagan was not stupid.  He knew he would have to pick an establishment running mate to keep the super-delegates from revolt.  Trump will have to do something similar, and I suspect that Kasich is still in this race because he wants to be that establishment 'bone'.  Kasich is in a good position for this, since he is a popular former governor of an important swing state.  This would quiet most of the establishment objections, since it comes with an implicit threat should Trump wander too far from the establishment reservation.

Kasich has said he would be the worst VP ever, that if he doesn't get pres, he'll just continue governing Ohio for the rest of his term. When asked if he'll support Trump if he get's the nomination, he neither confirms nor denies, making me think he would probably not support Trump, let alone be his VP

I don't put too much faith, or any faith, in what they actually say.  Paul Ryan was quoted as saying that he wouldn't accept the Speakership, only two weeks before accepting the speakership.  That fact has been brought up recently with his denial that he could present himself as an alternative nominee during a contested convention.

I think there is a good chance Paul Ryan will allow himself to be considered during a brokered convention, but very little chance of a VP Kasich

[MDM]

As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman.  Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.

Except that is not what happens.  Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions.  He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying). 
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/

You may be correct, but that article tends to support the "provider of abortion" position.  E.g., the article starts "In 2014, Jennifer Whalen, a nursing home aide, was sentenced to between 12 and 18 months in jail. Her crime? Trying to obtain medication abortion pills for her teenage daughter, who was facing an unwanted pregnancy. Whalen, who was charged with “performing an illegal abortion,”...."

If the pregnant teen had been sentenced, that would be a different thing.

[beltim]

Reagan had to accept George Bush, Sr. as his running mate to satisfy the party establishment & pre-empt a brokered convention.  The repubs still had their own version of the super-delegates that are currently plaguing Bernie Sanders in 1980, and contrary to popular liberal belief, Reagan was not stupid.  He knew he would have to pick an establishment running mate to keep the super-delegates from revolt.  Trump will have to do something similar, and I suspect that Kasich is still in this race because he wants to be that establishment 'bone'.  Kasich is in a good position for this, since he is a popular former governor of an important swing state.  This would quiet most of the establishment objections, since it comes with an implicit threat should Trump wander too far from the establishment reservation.

Kasich has said he would be the worst VP ever, that if he doesn't get pres, he'll just continue governing Ohio for the rest of his term. When asked if he'll support Trump if he get's the nomination, he neither confirms nor denies, making me think he would probably not support Trump, let alone be his VP

I don't put too much faith, or any faith, in what they actually say.  Paul Ryan was quoted as saying that he wouldn't accept the Speakership, only two weeks before accepting the speakership.  That fact has been brought up recently with his denial that he could present himself as an alternative nominee during a contested convention.

I think there is a good chance Paul Ryan will allow himself to be considered during a brokered convention, but very little chance of a VP Kasich

I don't think Kasich would want to be VP for Trump or Cruz.  I think Kasich might accept a VP slot with Paul Ryan, and might have accepted a VP slot with more establishment candidates like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney.

[MoonShadow]

I don't think Kasich would want to be VP for Trump or Cruz. I think Kasich might accept a VP slot with Paul Ryan, and might have accepted a VP slot with more establishment candidates like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney.

That's a good point, and might be what he is holding out for.

[Gin1984]

As I understand it, the traditional pro-life position would be to charge the person performing the abortion (e.g., the doctor), not the woman.  Thus Trump managed to offend both the pro-life and pro-choice groups with a single quote.

Except that is not what happens.  Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions.  He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying). 
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/

You may be correct, but that article tends to support the "provider of abortion" position.  E.g., the article starts "In 2014, Jennifer Whalen, a nursing home aide, was sentenced to between 12 and 18 months in jail. Her crime? Trying to obtain medication abortion pills for her teenage daughter, who was facing an unwanted pregnancy. Whalen, who was charged with “performing an illegal abortion,”...."

If the pregnant teen had been sentenced, that would be a different thing.

Did you finish reading the article because there are multiple examples of just that.

There is Purvi Patel, who was charged with neglect of a dependent and feticide after having a pregnancy loss that the state deemed was a self-induced abortion. She is currently serving a 41-year sentence while her case is on appeal. In three states—Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota—laws on the books allow for the involuntary civil commitment of pregnant women for “not following doctors’ orders.” Recent cases in which these laws were applied include those of Alicia Beltran and Tamara Loertscher in Wisconsin. As ProPublica has noted in “How States Handle Drug Use During Pregnancy,” hundreds and potentially thousands of women in three states—Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee—have faced criminal prosecution under “chemical endangerment laws” that allow for the criminal prosecution of drug use during pregnancy. The anti-choice movement has pushed for and supported these laws.

There is Bei Bei Shuai, who was charged with murder and attempted feticide for attempting suicide while pregnant. Shuai sat in jail for 435 days until she was released on bail (where she remained under surveillance by an electronic ankle monitor). In August 2013, nearly two and a half years after her prosecution began, she accepted a plea deal to the misdemeanor charge of “criminal recklessness.”

And in Tennessee, Anna Yocca was charged with attempted murder for a failed self-induced abortion attempt with a coat hanger. Prosecutors later dropped the attempted murder charge but said they would still pursue criminal charges against Yocca, likely for aggravated assault.

[beltim]

I don't think Kasich would want to be VP for Trump or Cruz. I think Kasich might accept a VP slot with Paul Ryan, and might have accepted a VP slot with more establishment candidates like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney.

That's a good point, and might be what he is holding out for.

Thanks.  I still think he's primarily holding out for the Presidential nomination in a brokered election.  He has actually received votes for the nomination, after all, unlike Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney.  But I think if it becomes clear he can't get that then I could see him being VP for another establishment candidate.

[MDM]

Except that is not what happens.  Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions.  He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying). 
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/

You may be correct, but that article tends to support the "provider of abortion" position.  E.g., the article starts "In 2014, Jennifer Whalen, a nursing home aide, was sentenced to between 12 and 18 months in jail. Her crime? Trying to obtain medication abortion pills for her teenage daughter, who was facing an unwanted pregnancy. Whalen, who was charged with “performing an illegal abortion,”...."
If the pregnant teen had been sentenced, that would be a different thing.

Did you finish reading the article because there are multiple examples of just that.

Yes, there are some examples of women being charged with performing self-abortions.  Didn't see any examples of a pregnant woman, but not her doctor, being charged when the doctor performed an abortion.

There are no doubt some far-right prosecutors who overreach on their favorite hot-button issues, just as some far-left prosecutors overreach on theirs.  In at least one case (Purvi Patel) a conviction by jury occurred.  One might infer there is something more than an out of control prosecutor when that happens - although juries are not infallible (e.g., OJ Simpson).

[dramaman]

Except that is not what happens.  Women are, in the US, jailed for miscarriages/abortions.  He is just the only one being honest (which is just insane for me to be saying). 
https://rewire.news/article/2016/04/01/punish-women-abortion-spare-outrage-mainstream-anti-choice-position/

You may be correct, but that article tends to support the "provider of abortion" position.  E.g., the article starts "In 2014, Jennifer Whalen, a nursing home aide, was sentenced to between 12 and 18 months in jail. Her crime? Trying to obtain medication abortion pills for her teenage daughter, who was facing an unwanted pregnancy. Whalen, who was charged with “performing an illegal abortion,”...."
If the pregnant teen had been sentenced, that would be a different thing.

Did you finish reading the article because there are multiple examples of just that.

Yes, there are some examples of women being charged with performing self-abortions.  Didn't see any examples of a pregnant woman, but not her doctor, being charged when the doctor performed an abortion.

That's because abortions through regular abortion providers are legal and thus the anti-choice movement aren't able to get their pound of flesh.

There are no doubt some far-right prosecutors who overreach on their favorite hot-button issues, just as some far-left prosecutors overreach on theirs.  In at least one case (Purvi Patel) a conviction by jury occurred.  One might infer there is something more than an out of control prosecutor when that happens - although juries are not infallible (e.g., OJ Simpson).

Whether or not the prosecutors are overzealous, it was anti-abortion lawmakers who passed the laws exist that enable that prosecution. I think the point in these examples is that the anti-abortion movement is not as pro-woman as they want people to believe. These show that they want laws on the books that protect the unborn with penalties for pregnant women who don't behave as proper baby making incubators. If these are examples of laws when abortion is illegal, one has to wonder what would the laws look like if abortion is ever made illegal? I seriously doubt a woman who obtains an abortion from an illegal abortion pill would be viewed as a victim rather than a criminal. Trump got in trouble because he admitted a logical end point position of what the law should do if anti-abortion activists actually manage to make abortion illegal. Trump uttered what is known as a Kinsley Gaffe, a statement by a politician that the politician believes is true while the politician has not fully analyzed the consequences of publicly stating it.

[MDM]

If these are examples of laws when abortion is illegal, one has to wonder what would the laws look like if abortion is ever made illegal?

Rather than go off-subject and down the abortion rabbit hole, I'll just repeat the observation that Trump being able to offend, in a single quote, both
- the (pro-life/anti-choice) folks who think even rape does not justify abortion, and
- the (pro-choice/anti-life) folks who see no problem with killing a baby in the process of birth,
was quite the political misstep.

[MoonShadow]

If these are examples of laws when abortion is illegal, one has to wonder what would the laws look like if abortion is ever made illegal?

Rather than go off-subject and down the abortion rabbit hole, I'll just repeat the observation that Trump being able to offend, in a single quote, both
- the (pro-life/anti-choice) folks who think even rape does not justify abortion, and
- the (pro-choice/anti-life) folks who see no problem with killing a baby in the process of birth,
was quite the political misstep.

It certainly seems like Mathews managed to trump Trump (pun intended) but now I've begun to wonder.  You are right that this seems to offend both of the ideologically rigid sides of this conversation, but how many people is that really?  For how much of the electorate is the pro-choice/pro-life issue a defining concern?  I really don't know, but upon some cursory observations of my own around my own extended family, for which this is a divided issue; it seems that what Trump actually said, once that actual video clip is watched, seems to tickle the 'fairness' part of the brain of most of them.  Basically, IF abortion were magically rendered illegal again, that there should be some form of punishment for willful participation in a crime.  There seems to be a rational kind of "that seems fair, when you really consider it" kind of slow response from most of my family members, excepting those that have an ideological attachment to one side or another.  I don't think that this will hurt him in the long run, but for now, it might very well hurt him in the Wisconsin primary; for which he doesn't seem likely to win anyway.

[MDM]

If these are examples of laws when abortion is illegal, one has to wonder what would the laws look like if abortion is ever made illegal?

Rather than go off-subject and down the abortion rabbit hole, I'll just repeat the observation that Trump being able to offend, in a single quote, both
- the (pro-life/anti-choice) folks who think even rape does not justify abortion, and
- the (pro-choice/anti-life) folks who see no problem with killing a baby in the process of birth,
was quite the political misstep.

It certainly seems like Mathews managed to trump Trump (pun intended) but now I've begun to wonder.  You are right that this seems to offend both of the ideologically rigid sides of this conversation, but how many people is that really?  For how much of the electorate is the pro-choice/pro-life issue a defining concern?  I really don't know, but upon some cursory observations of my own around my own extended family, for which this is a divided issue; it seems that what Trump actually said, once that actual video clip is watched, seems to tickle the 'fairness' part of the brain of most of them.  Basically, IF abortion were magically rendered illegal again, that there should be some form of punishment for willful participation in a crime.  There seems to be a rational kind of "that seems fair, when you really consider it" kind of slow response from most of my family members, excepting those that have an ideological attachment to one side or another.  I don't think that this will hurt him in the long run, but for now, it might very well hurt him in the Wisconsin primary; for which he doesn't seem likely to win anyway.

All fair points.

I do think some fraction of Trump's comments that have appalled the inside-the-beltway crew actually are well-received by many.  Others appall a wider population.

This one, even Trump himself took back quickly, as opposed to many he stands by.

[golden1]

Exactly, By definition, if you make abortion illegal, some women will be punished, so seeing the other candidates all upset about Trump saying that is so hypocritical. 

If you look at a lot of Trump's more controversial statements, it is his just articulating in plain language what many Republicans truly believe socially, and just express through coded language.  Much of it is actually closer to sharia law and Jim Crow segregation than they want to admit.  Trump, in some ways, is really doing people a favor by putting a mirror up to the Republican Party and having their beliefs scrutinized more closely. 

[Cyaphas]

I'd like to think I'm a fairly sane person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I do feel like the only candidate I'd ever want to sit down and share a meal with is Bernie, but his politics are frighteningly dangerous. To the point:

I think Donald Trump is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.

Feel free to poke holes/fun, I've got thick skin.

[Glenstache]

I'd like to think I'm a fairly sane person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I do feel like the only candidate I'd ever want to sit down and share a meal with is Bernie, but his politics are frighteningly dangerous. To the point:

I think Donald Trump is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.

Feel free to poke holes/fun, I've got thick skin.

I guess that, as of today, the NY Times would say this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/us/politics/donald-trump-general-election.html?ref=politics

[Cyaphas]

I'd like to think I'm a fairly sane person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I do feel like the only candidate I'd ever want to sit down and share a meal with is Bernie, but his politics are frighteningly dangerous. To the point:

I think Donald Trump is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.

Feel free to poke holes/fun, I've got thick skin.

I guess that, as of today, the NY Times would say this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/us/politics/donald-trump-general-election.html?ref=politics

Every media outlet in the country has been consistently wrong about Trump's campaign. The irony being that they're the very reason he's done so well. When every political article and political show can't stop talking about Trump for less than 80% of their content, a favorite quote comes to mind "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

[GuitarStv]

I'd like to think I'm a fairly sane person. I'm not a Trump supporter.

You don't really have to specify the second after stating the first.  It's generally a truism.  :P

[golden1]

I think Donald Drumpf is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.

You wouldn't be the first one to wonder if the Trump candidacy is just a giant distraction.  I do think whoever the next president is is going to be screwed, either by a major terrorist attack, a financial default similar to 2008. 

Where I differ is that when the major catastrophe hits, I want someone at least halfway competent to try to handle it.  I don't know if we have anyone of that caliber running, but Trump surely isn't that person. 

[Jeremy E.]

I think Donald Drumpf is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.

You wouldn't be the first one to wonder if the Trump candidacy is just a giant distraction.  I do think whoever the next president is is going to be screwed, either by a major terrorist attack, a financial default similar to 2008. 

Where I differ is that when the major catastrophe hits, I want someone at least halfway competent to try to handle it.  I don't know if we have anyone of that caliber running, but Trump surely isn't that person.

I don't think most of this will happen,
I don't think Trump will get presidency (I think it will be Hillary, although I would prefer John Kasich or Paul Ryan)
Trump has been doing very poorly over the last week, and I don't think he'll get enough delegates, it'll be a brokered convention, and Cruz, Kasich, or Paul Ryan will take the cake.
I don't think there will be a major financial crisis in the next 4 years, maybe 8 if things go terrible, I do think we need to come up with a new plan to start lowering our debt to GDP ratio, as  currently our national debt is higher than our GDP which is a recipe for disaster.
I have no clue if there will be a major terrorist attack

[nereo]

You wouldn't be the first one to wonder if the Trump candidacy is just a giant distraction.  I do think whoever the next president is is going to be screwed, either by a major terrorist attack, a financial default similar to 2008. 

Where I differ is that when the major catastrophe hits, I want someone at least halfway competent to try to handle it.  I don't know if we have anyone of that caliber running, but Trump surely isn't that person.

I think it's important to put a bit more detail on predictions like that.  Pick any 4 year period and odds are pretty evenly split that it will contain at least one recession. Likewise, 'terrorist attacks' are fairly frequent if you don't define the scale (e.g. # of people killed, $ damage etc) or geographical region (just inside the US?  Globally?  Developed nations?).  It's kind of like a fortune teller saying "oh, I see something very bad happening to someone very close to you this year".

just sayin'

[MoonShadow]

I think Donald Drumpf is going to win the presidency. He's the perfect patsy for both parties. I believe he'll win and during his first term the world will begin major defaults on the rather extreme amounts of debt and begin reigning in entitlements on a mass scale. When this happens, it won't matter how great the President or legislators are. They'll be quite simply, screwed. I think both parties realize it too.

You wouldn't be the first one to wonder if the Trump candidacy is just a giant distraction.  I do think whoever the next president is is going to be screwed, either by a major terrorist attack, a financial default similar to 2008. 

Where I differ is that when the major catastrophe hits, I want someone at least halfway competent to try to handle it.  I don't know if we have anyone of that caliber running, but Trump surely isn't that person.

I don't think most of this will happen,
I don't think Trump will get presidency (I think it will be Hillary, although I would prefer John Kasich or Paul Ryan)
Trump has been doing very poorly over the last week, and I don't think he'll get enough delegates, it'll be a brokered convention, and Cruz, Kasich, or Paul Ryan will take the cake.
I don't think there will be a major financial crisis in the next 4 years, maybe 8 if things go terrible, I do think we need to come up with a new plan to start lowering our debt to GDP ratio, as  currently our national debt is higher than our GDP which is a recipe for disaster.
I have no clue if there will be a major terrorist attack

If Trump loses Wisconsin, which looks likely, it will be very difficult for him to secure the delegates with the remaining states.  However, if Trump pulls another Trump card (pun intended) in Wisconsin and eeks out a win, or even a practical tie with Cruz (as in 2nd but within a couple of percentage points) Trump will roll to victory in the remaining states.  We will know by Wednesday morning.

[Cyaphas]

Something I found entertaining on Zerohedge.

[Jeremy E.]

I'm now thinking Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention. Hillary will win the democratic nomination. Then in the general election, there are some factors, if Trump runs as 3rd party then Clinton will win, if Trump doesn't run and Bloomberg does, then Cruz will probably win, if neither Trump nor Bloomberg runs then Clinton will probably just barely win.

[MoonShadow]

I'm now thinking Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention.

If the party establishment is willing & able to deny Trump the nom, they wouldn't let Cruz have it either.

[MoonShadow]

https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/cruz-wins-wisconsin-trump-wins-nomination/

Don't get you hopes too high that the party wonks will get their way, though.  There are no super-delegates remaining in the Republican Party system, and there won't be.

[Jeremy E.]

I'm now thinking Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention.

If the party establishment is willing & able to deny Trump the nom, they wouldn't let Cruz have it either.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/

[Jeremy E.]

https://dougwead.wordpress.com/2016/04/06/cruz-wins-wisconsin-trump-wins-nomination/

Don't get you hopes too high that the party wonks will get their way, though.  There are no super-delegates remaining in the Republican Party system, and there won't be.

I think it's likely trump won't hit the magic 1237 number he needs, and if he doesn't win on the first ballot he's probably done
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-probably-first-ballot-or-bust-for-donald-trump-at-the-gop-convention/

[MoonShadow]

I'm now thinking Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention.

If the party establishment is willing & able to deny Trump the nom, they wouldn't let Cruz have it either.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/

Nate Silver has lost his muse this cycle.  Scott Adams, a cartoonist by trade, has had a much better record of predictions this go around.

[Jeremy E.]

I'm now thinking Ted Cruz will win the Republican nomination in a brokered convention.

If the party establishment is willing & able to deny Trump the nom, they wouldn't let Cruz have it either.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-not-paul-ryan-would-probably-win-a-contested-convention/

Nate Silver has lost his muse this cycle.  Scott Adams, a cartoonist by trade, has had a much better record of predictions this go around.

It's talking about how the establishment has very few delegates that gets to choose the next GOP Nominee, but instead the delegates from state and local conventions, many of which have chosen to support Cruz already. Cruz is also much more Trumplike than any of the other potential nominees, and it will cause less fuss if someone that was close to beating Trump takes nomination, rather than someone like Kasich who only got a small percentage of votes/delegates, or Paul Ryan who has said he doesn't want to be the republican nominee and didn't even run.

[BlueHouse]

I think, instead, the act of teabagging is more to express dominance over another person. It's aggressive and invasive and it submits the recipient to an unwanted gesture of a sexual nature.

Interesting take, but in that context wouldn't it be saying that Tea Party members are dominant? Or are you saying that is essentially calling them out as bullies?

My mom used it once or twice until I corrected her. I told her I didn't think it meant what she thought it meant. She has a history of using words or phrases that might have a dual meaning without fully understanding the more vulgar meaning. (Think of her as a Puritan, and you'd be pretty close).
I wouldn't tell her what it meant and insisted it was too vulgar to say out loud to my own mother while urging her to look it up. I laughed the entire time, telling her she couldn't use my tablet to search for a term so raunchy!  I almost fell out of my chair when she finally found and read it. She's a really good sport, but you have to imagine a cross between church-lady and Mrs. Cleaver and then picture the reaction!  I love her! 

I'm not really sure how well thought out the epithet was at the time, by whoever invented it. And honestly, I am not sure what percentage of people who have used it as an insult actually know the reference, either.

But you have made me curious enough to try to find the origin of this insult.

[MDM]

Based on http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html it appears Trump will have enough delegates (3 more than the minimum needed) if he sweeps the winner-take-all primaries.  This does not include any of the other remaining state primaries.

Haven't checked to see what the various polls predict for these states.

Didn't bother calculating the possible outcomes in the proportional ballot states because there are too many possibilities (same goes for all the states on the Democratic side).

[beltim]

MDM, several of those "winner take all" states are only "winner take all" by district.  In other words, not winner take all at all.

And those several add up to more than half of the "winner take all" delegates left.

[MDM]

MDM, several of those "winner take all" states are only "winner take all" by district.  In other words, not winner take all at all.

And those several add up to more than half of the "winner take all" delegates left.

Yes - details are at the bottom of the RCP link.

Gut feel says the press is over-hyping the chances of Sanders and Cruz to catch Clinton and Trump, simply to increase viewers and ad revenue. 

Wanted to see if Cruz had a mathematical way to reach 1237 with the "winner take all" states alone - he doesn't.  If Trump is able to sweep the WTA states (even if he doesn't get 100% of he district delegates), it seems likely that the delegates he adds in the proportional states will be more than enough to reach 1237.

Time will tell....

[MoonShadow]

Based on http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/republican_delegate_count.html it appears Trump will have enough delegates (3 more than the minimum needed) if he sweeps the winner-take-all primaries.  This does not include any of the other remaining state primaries.

Haven't checked to see what the various polls predict for these states.

Cruz is not favored to win any of the remaining primary states, but Beltim is right here.  The remaining winner-take-all states are by congressional district, or similar break-up such as county.  None are winner-take-all by the whole state.

IIRC, Cruz is favored in about half of the remaining caucus states, as he seems to have a better structure in those states.  Meaning he will get supporters elected or appointed to those delegate seats regardless of the popular vote of the state.

No matter how it goes down, this one is going to be a squeaker, and for the first time in many decades, the votes of California Republicans will have a real effect upon the election.

[MDM]

No matter how it goes down, this one is going to be a squeaker, and for the first time in many decades, the votes of California Republicans will have a real effect upon the election.

Yes.  Even if he runs the table from now through the end of May, Trump can't get to 1237 until the final primary day, June 7.

[Jeremy E.]

MDM, several of those "winner take all" states are only "winner take all" by district.  In other words, not winner take all at all.

And those several add up to more than half of the "winner take all" delegates left.

Yes - details are at the bottom of the RCP link.

Gut feel says the press is over-hyping the chances of Sanders and Cruz to catch Clinton and Trump, simply to increase viewers and ad revenue. 

Wanted to see if Cruz had a mathematical way to reach 1237 with the "winner take all" states alone - he doesn't.  If Trump is able to sweep the WTA states (even if he doesn't get 100% of he district delegates), it seems likely that the delegates he adds in the proportional states will be more than enough to reach 1237.

Time will tell....

I don't expect Cruz to get 1237 on the first ballot, I think there will be multiple ballots and people that were once Trump will switch to Cruz. I don't think Sanders has a chance.