You are not logged in. Please register or login.

TheMole
 Rep: 76 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

TheMole wrote:

I think the real story here is how Trump's numbers are so far off from his polling averages. Makes me think that either (1) instead of a silent majority, Trump voters are more of a vocal minority than people are ready to accept (although admittedly, his numbers are probably too high to use the term 'minority') or (2) his voters just don't care enough to show up. If someone is really as angry with the establishment as is being said about Trump voters, those two to four hours needed to participate in a caucus shouldn't be a problem. Trump supporters should be worried and probably take more responsibility and go out and actually fucking vote if they want him to stand a chance. If this discrepancy repeats itself in the upcoming states, he's a goner.

On the Democrats' side, Bernie basically matched or slightly beat his poll numbers. It's going to be tough, but a landslide victory in NH and a strong showing in SC might give Bernie's candidacy the wings that it needs to sway the southern states in his favor. And now that O'Malley is out, he'll be picking up some of those anti-Hillary votes as well.

I'm hoping Bernie is going to take it, but he might have needed a bigger upset in Iowa.

bigbri
 Rep: 333 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

bigbri wrote:

Trump is done. He is an "image" candidate. His image now is of a "loser." He already was the brash, racist, classless asshole who shoots from the hip, but people liked that. Now he's the losing, brash, racist, classless asshole who shoots from the hip. That's not gonna sell. He barely beat Rubio.

Also, don't forget. He's funding his own campaign. He's a businessman. He's not going to continue to pump money into a losing effort.

Trump, you're fired.

supaplex
 Rep: 57 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

supaplex wrote:

Presidents decided on a coin toss 16 Hilarious.
Maybe that's what we need.
The public vote has no value anyways, at least that's what everyone thinks.

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 328 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:

Rubio is going to be tough to hold off now... Iowa may be Cruz's only win... By South Carolina we will have a good idea who it will be.

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

PaSnow wrote:
TheMole wrote:

I'm hoping Bernie is going to take it, but he might have needed a bigger upset in Iowa.

I agree, however maybe on the other hand the attention of a failed/rigged/coin toss election might really motivate the anti-Hillary camp, and those casual Hillary supporters might become a bit irritated by her & the big machine all over again and lose a bit of interest.

Neemo
 Rep: 481 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

Neemo wrote:

Did any of the Republican candidates drop out?

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Neemo wrote:

Did any of the Republican candidates drop out?

I think Huckabee.  More should.  IMHO all except Christie & Bush should stay for NH (including Cruz, Trump & Rubio obviously).  Then from there if they're not significantly higher they should drop out, especially Christie.  He has little shot in SC or Nevada. Jeb might do well in SC & obviously is hoping to make it to Florida.

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

PaSnow wrote:

The primaries need to be redone.  I think somewhere here (James maybe) in 08 said they should vote in 3 waves, small states one day, then a month later medium states, then a month later large states.  That way, small states do get attention, and pols can pick & chose where they will/won't do well (East Coast, South, Midwest etc).  And, if they're behind after small & mid they might be able to hang in there if they're gonna win big states like Texas, Florida & California...

Putting too much stock into Iowa & NH doesn't make much sense.

slcpunk
 Rep: 149 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

slcpunk wrote:
bigbri wrote:

Trump is done. He is an "image" candidate. His image now is of a "loser." He already was the brash, racist, classless asshole who shoots from the hip, but people liked that. Now he's the losing, brash, racist, classless asshole who shoots from the hip. That's not gonna sell. He barely beat Rubio.

Also, don't forget. He's funding his own campaign. He's a businessman. He's not going to continue to pump money into a losing effort.

Trump, you're fired.

I wouldn't call it quite yet. Cruz took this one because of the evangelical vote. Trump catering to that demographic is kind of hilarious; I'm guessing he is as legitimately religious as I am. But I'm not surprised by him taking second place to Cruz here.

I don't think Iowa is a very good litmus test for the GOP. We need to see more. One thing about elections, they can shift quickly. Anything can happen, especially this far out.

PaSnow
 Rep: 203 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

PaSnow wrote:
Cramer wrote:
bigbri wrote:

Trump is done. He is an "image" candidate. His image now is of a "loser." He already was the brash, racist, classless asshole who shoots from the hip, but people liked that. Now he's the losing, brash, racist, classless asshole who shoots from the hip. That's not gonna sell. He barely beat Rubio.

Also, don't forget. He's funding his own campaign. He's a businessman. He's not going to continue to pump money into a losing effort.

Trump, you're fired.

I wouldn't call it quite yet. Cruz took this one because of the evangelical vote. Trump catering to that demographic is kind of hilarious; I'm guessing he is as legitimately religious as I am. But I'm not surprised by him taking second place to Cruz here.

I don't think Iowa is a very good litmus test for the GOP. We need to see more. One thing about elections, they can shift quickly. Anything can happen, especially this far out.

Agreed.  I'd stick with the Top 3, plus Jeb.  Anyone else needs a whopper of an upset in NH, otherwise the rest are dropping out.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB