Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[S.G. Janssens]

The Democrats don't count voters in Iowa, but ... something else:

You are again correct, it is almost scary. Next time I cannot find my house keys, I will ask you to tell me where they are.

It seems a bit curious to me that apparently the raw totals are not mentioned (available?) for the Democrats in Iowa.

 

[Samy_A]

It seems a bit curious to me that apparently the raw totals are not mentioned (available?) for the Democrats in Iowa.

Very strange indeed. I found a total on the website of the Iowa Democratic party: 171,109 voters in total. Not a very transparent process.

 

[BobG]

As a foreigner to your politics, I found it quite surprising to see the difference in totals between Democrats and Republicans. Does any of you have an idea of why so few Democrats decided to vote in this caucus, or am I missing an obvious point? Judging by the marginal difference between Sanders and Clinton, one would perhaps expect a higher turnout.

Or is the population of Democrats in Iowa simply very, very small?

Iowa has a very convoluted system for Democrats. The numbers reflected in the earlier post don't show how many voted for each candidate, but the number of voters is small simply because it's hard to vote (relative to a primary). You have to be available for the full evening and you have to interact with other people at the caucus, etc.

What the numbers from the previous post do show is how many delegates for each candidate move on to the next phase. That's a pretty good indication of how the candidate did, but delegates don't have to vote for the candidate they were selected to represent. There's various reasons they might change their support to a different candidate, with one being their candidate may no longer be in the race by time the delegates meet (which is in March).

After the second phase, a final phase is done to divvy up who gets how many out of 44 delegates.

Besides the delegates that were voted on, there are 8 superdelegates (party office holders, etc) that can vote how they feel. They're not officially committed to any candidate until the convention late in the summer, but most will have at least verbally committed to one candidate or the other. This year, 5 of the superdelegates have already committed to Clinton. Assuming they honor that commitment, she wins Iowa simply by matching Sanders in the delegates "voted" on.

Which partly explains why Clinton is proclaiming victory even though the vote totals look like a tie to the average person.

The actual winner won't be known with 100% certainty for months (at which point it won't matter anymore).

This is somewhat similar to how most states selected delegates in the old days, when the party leadership pretty much selected the party's nominee. TV has made the process more democratic simply because primaries can be exciting and suspenseful and make for good ratings on TV. And lots of TV viewers generates excitement for a party's candidate, which improves his/her chances in the general election.

As to who won, there were about 5 victory speeches between the two parties, so it looks like there were lots of winners. Cruz definitely won. Coming out of Iowa, he holds a commanding lead of 1 delegate over Trump and Rubio. Clinton definitely is winning Iowa, since I think she leads by about 4 or 5 or 6 (you never know for sure until they're actually selected) with only 3 superdelegates left to make up their minds.

 

[BobG]

So Ted "Awaken the body of Christ!" Cruz has won Iowa, and the polls were off well beyond the percentage of error. I think Ted had the best ground game and team for dealing with the caucus state of Iowa. Kudos to him, a smart and revolutionary man.

Trump has had a moment of clarity to reflect upon his errors and shortcomings.

Rubio has clearly won the backing of the establishment, for all the good and ill that portends.

Dr. Carson is still a strong player.

Rand Paul emerges in a clear 5th, still a player. He's my man!

Jeb Bush. Spent more than all the rest combined, but will he give up?

Rubio only has the backing of the "establishment" until New Hampshire. He has a fight to beat out Kasich. The Bush campaign has more money than the other establishment candidates for the primaries past New Hampshire. The only thing Iowa has really done for Rubio is to increase his chances of raising money (which is pretty darn important). If Kasich wins New Hampshire and starts attracting money as well, then there might not be a consensus "establishment" candidate. But I agree that Bush has to show something pretty quickly. Personally, I think Bush doing poorly in New Hampshire is more important to Rubio than whether Rubio beats Kasich. Christie's only real hope is to climb over the bones of Rubio, Bush, and Kasich after they've devoured each other. Christie sounds good on TV, but he hasn't done the ground work the other candidates have.

Iowa is probably Carson's best performance and probably the only state where he finishes in double digits percentage wise.

Paul will hang there quite a while. Given the race has resembled something dreamed up by the Onion so far, hanging around long enough for the improbable to happen...

I agree that Cruz is the smartest candidate in the field. I'd never vote for him because I believe he'll try to do the things he says he's going to do, but he is smart.

 

[bballwaterboy]

On the horizon - Michael Bloomberg may launch independent U.S. presidential bid: source
http://news.yahoo.com/michael-bloomberg-may-launch-independent-u-presidential-bid-152658508.html

Interesting.

Is it possible for him to win so late in the game?

What are his major policy positions?

 

[Astronuc]

Is it possible for him to win so late in the game?

What are his major policy positions?

One can find some background on Bloomberg's website - http://www.mikebloomberg.com/

One could try - http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm - which has some statements related to various topics

I think some folks think it is too late for Bloomberg who has expressed presidential aspirations for the last decade or so.

In the current cycle - NY Times report
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/n...ing-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html

 

[Astronuc]

Certainly the next president will have a lot on the foreign policy plate: Iraq and Syria, Libya, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, EU, . . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-couple-christie-talks-voted-rubio-080824142--election.html Jeff Ashcraft, Iowa voter: "I would suggest that New Hampshire voters take a look at every single one of the candidates, and do what Gov. Christie said: Get all the information they can, and listen to their hearts," he said. "I'd go further and say, also listen to your head, and marry the two together to make a decision."

Good advice. There is hope.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There is hope.

Hope starts with the contenders. You can't expect excellent outcomes from picking the best rotten apple from the basket.

 

[Astronuc]

Hope starts with the contenders. You can't expect excellent outcomes from picking the best rotten apple from the basket.

I was thinking in terms of the voters, not the candidates.

The next president will have a lot of full plates: foreign policy, global and national security, the US (particularly income/wealth disparity) and global economics, energy policy (including climate change), healthcare, and education just to name some.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I was thinking in terms of the voters, not the candidates.

Right, but I'm saying it doesn't matter how well the voters weigh their options when the options aren't good.

 

[Evo]

I agree that Cruz is the smartest candidate in the field. I'd never vote for him because I believe he'll try to do the things he says he's going to do, but he is smart.

Can you list those things? I'm trying to find a candidate other than Hilary and Sanders that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of me, and I thought Cruz was least scary since the other candidates are criticising him for not being religious enough.

 

[Rx7man]

I don't have much information, but if Rand Paul is much like his dad, that's a good thing.. I really enjoyed watching speeches of Ron's, and the Jon Stewart commentary of the media completely and deliberately not mentioning him.

I think if the Republicans choose a candidate that isn't too right wing they have a good shot at the election regardless of if they're against Clinton or Sanders. From what I see (outside looking in?), the right and the left are in a race to see who can be more extreme, and in my opinion, this only leads to band-aide solutions, policies that are draconian, and uncertainty in everything, including the economy... Trump epitomizes this, and for that reason I find him extremely dangerous, and should he be the Republican candidate I think he will scare many moderate republicans to either not vote or to vote *gasp* for the Democrats.

I wish I had the bandwidth to watch some of the debates.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Hope starts with the contenders. You can't expect excellent outcomes from picking the best rotten apple from the basket.

In your opinion, are both the Republican and the Democrat baskets filled with rotten apples? (Not a trick question, I'm really curious what moderate Americans think of their candidates.)

 

[Bystander]

Both.

 

[Astronuc]

Potential New Hampshire spoiler Kasich could pose threat to Rubio
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-kasich-idUSMTZSAPEC277BZMJY

among New Hampshire voters, a Monmouth University poll released on Sunday found Kasich at 14 percent, compared with 30 percent for Trump and 13 percent for Rubio and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

Reflecting Bystander's comment:

Tim Vanblommesteyn, 62, who attended the Kasich town hall in Concord, said he was “disgusted” with both political parties but liked some of what the Ohio governor had to say.

 

[Astronuc]

Results from the 2016 New Hampshire primary
http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-new-hampshire-results/

Trump and Sanders have solid leads.

John Kasich came in 2nd in the republican primary.

 

[jtbell]

if Rand Paul is much like his dad, that's a good thing.

Rand Paul dropped out of the race last week after the Iowa caucus.

Right now, the Associated Press tally on the Democratic side (by way of the BBC) shows the first four finishers as Sanders, Clinton, O'Malley, and... drum roll... Vermin Supreme , followed by 24 other candidates; those guys must have been write-ins.

 

[Dotini]

Results from the 2016 New Hampshire primary
http://graphics.latimes.com/election-2016-new-hampshire-results/

Trump and Sanders have solid leads.

John Kasich came in 2nd in the republican primary.

Trump and Sanders, both riding the back of populist nationalism, have swept aside the establishment in New Hampshire.

 

[phinds]

Hard to see why Christie or Fiorina would bother to stay in the race now. Fiorina has always been nothing but a footnote but Christie could have had a chance, maybe, or at least it's easy to see how he and his supporters could have thought so, but now ... ?

Amazing the way Trump continues to defy political gravity.

 

[jtbell]

I think the main reason Trump looks so good is that the "establishment" candidates have been fragmenting their support. The CNN results page for NH shows:

45% "Establishment" (Kasich + Bush + Rubio + Christie)
35% Trump
12% Cruz

 

[Astronuc]

Amazing the way Trump continues to defy political gravity.

I think Trump generates his own gravity.

Meanwhile,
Paul Hodes, a Clinton supporter and former U.S. congressman from New Hampshire, said

“I’m hoping that Hillary takes a real look at an authentic emotional message that connects with voters from here on."

“She’s enormously intelligent, she’s well-versed in policy, and voters have a short attention span,” Hodes continued. “They’re happy when they’re promised puppies and rainbows.”

So I guess we can expect a more emotional campaign, or at least a more emotional Clinton.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/bernie-sanders-wins-nh-handily-as-democrats-055804907.html

I'm rather annoyed at politicians who are dismissive of the voters or public.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

So I guess we can expect a more emotional campaign, or at least a more emotional Clinton.

She can't, she's a robot

 

[Astronuc]

Grand Old Panic over Trump's win
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/grand-old-panic-as-trump-blows-away-the-073124443.html

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Grand Old Panic over Trump's win
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/grand-old-panic-as-trump-blows-away-the-073124443.html

Rubio's poor performance was a bit unexpected. It appears he's another 4 years away from being a viable candidate.

 

[Astronuc]

Rubio's poor performance was a bit unexpected. It appears he's another 4 years away from being a viable candidate.

Rubio is certainly showing his lack of experience.

In the article:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who mauled Rubio in Saturday’s debate and hoped for a boost in New Hampshire as a result, isn’t even likely to try. As soon as it became clear that Christie would not finish in the top five Tuesday, despite spending more days in the Granite State, at 75, than any other candidate, the governor announced that he was heading home to “take a deep breath” and reassess his struggling campaign.

I would expect Christie to withdraw soon.

“He has almost no money,” said Spencer Bachus, a former Republican Congressman from Alabama who served for 16 years with Kasich. “The big money has gone to Bush, Trump is self-financed and Cruz has a lot of Texas money. John has been operating on a shoestring.”

On to South Carolina.

The South Carolina GOP presidential primary is set for Saturday, February 20, 2016. With the New Hampshire primary in the rearview mirror, attention will shift to the Palmetto State, whose “First in the South” primary is next up on the GOP primary schedule. After South Carolina, the GOP campaign moves to Nevada, which holds its caucus on Tuesday, February 23.

South Carolina and Nevada vote in the opposite order for the Democrats, whose Nevada caucus is February 20 and whose South Carolina primary is February 27.

March madness starts with SuperTuesday on March 1.

List of primaries and caucuses
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

 

[gleem]

With Trump's win in NH do you think it will embolden him to escalate his perverse strategy using offensive and outrageous rhetoric like ...I won't loose any votes even if I shoot someone on 5th ave. or Cruz is a p...!

Will voters come to their senses or will it stimulate a "mob mentality" for change at any cost.

 

[phinds]

Will voters come to their senses or will it stimulate a "mob mentality" for change at any cost.

Why would you expect it to change? Is there some reason why, if voters were going to "come to their senses", they would not already have done so? On what do you base your implicit assumption that they have any "senses" to come to.

Trumps successes have left me with a very dim view of a large swath of American voters.

 

[gleem]

Trumps successes have left me with a very dim view of a large swath of American voters.

Before the voting about 40% said that they where undecided. I was hoping that they had some sense left. So after the voting and Trump's victory I was disappointed but not surprised in the obvious decision of these voters to head for Trump. This is NH and mostly rural which is usually quite conservative where you expect to find people living off the grid. Keep in mind the state motto "Live Free or Die" not big government fans.

I expect He will be strong in South Carolina too even the democrats are conservative.

 

[Dotini]

Trumps successes have left me with a very dim view of a large swath of American voters.

Do you take a dim view of those who have lost their jobs to foreign competition? Do you take a dim view of young men and women who have graduated college with $80k debt and no prospect of employment?

 

[phinds]

Do you take a dim view of those who have lost their jobs to foreign competition? Do you take a dim view of young men and women who have graduated college with $80k debt and no prospect of employment?

No, I take a dim view of anyone who thinks The Donald would make a good president regardless of their other characteristics.

 

[Rx7man]

Part of the reason for the dim view may be because some of these kids spent $80K on a career path without a good outlook for employment at the end of it? Don't get me wrong, I loathe the idea of all our jobs being lost overseas, and Trump has a point there... I just see him as a serious danger on the world stage.

Everyone is always told to pursue the career of their dreams, and a lot of them do, but a rational person will make a weighted choice between what they love doing, and what will put food on the table... There's a limit to how many marine biologists the government can employ, if you don't have some skills the private sector can use then employment opportunities will be limited... unless you want fries with that.

 

[gleem]

No, I take a dim view of anyone who thinks The Donald would make a good president regardless of their other characteristics.

As do I but here is one explanation of why Trump is being successful and might win

My finding is the result of a national poll I conducted in the last five days of December under the auspices of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, sampling 1,800 registered voters across the country and the political spectrum. Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology and religiosity had no significant bearing on a Republican voter’s preferred candidate. Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism, though the former was far more significant than the latter.

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations.

Not all authoritarians are Republicans by any means; in national surveys since 1992, many authoritarians have also self-identified as independents and Democrats. And in the 2008 Democratic primary, the political scientist Marc Hetherington found that authoritarianism mattered more than income, ideology, gender, age and education in predicting whether voters preferred Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. But Hetherington has also found, based on 14 years of polling, that authoritarians have steadily moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party over time. He hypothesizes that the trend began decades ago, as Democrats embraced civil rights, gay rights, employment protections and other political positions valuing freedom and equality. In my poll results, authoritarianism was not a statistically significant factor in the Democratic primary race, at least not so far, but it does appear to be playing an important role on the Republican side. Indeed, 49 percent of likely Republican primary voters I surveyed score in the top quarter of the authoritarian scale—more than twice as many as Democratic voters.

Political pollsters have missed this key component of Trump’s support
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533#ixzz3zn78P7VI

In his book "Political Animal" Rick Shenkman without specifically talking about Trump provides light on his campaign strategy. excerpt for a review of the book. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rumps-appeal-and-its-not-the-art-of-the-deal/

Shenkman, editor of the History News Network, delves into evolutionary psychology to illuminate why American voters so often misread their leaders, resist politicians who offer hard truths and succumb to facile arguments. It’s not that voters are stupid or ignorant, though certainly some of us are one or the other, or both. Rather, he contends, it’s that we’re hard-wired for a different world and different politics.

“There’s a mismatch between the brains we inherited from the Stone Age, when mankind lived in small communities,” Shenkman writes, “and the brain we need to deal with challenges we face in a democratic society consisting of millions of people.”

And talented politicians can exploit that mismatch. Trump is just the latest.

.........

Even though “Political Animals” never mentions Trump and does not touch on the 2016 presidential race, it’s impossible to read the book without thinking of the GOP front-runner, who has fashioned a campaign that appeals to instinct, anger, fear

..........
.Much has been made of Trump tapping into the anger and disaffection of portions of the GOP base. From an evolutionary perspective, Shenkman explains, anger was indeed useful for us as hunter-gatherers. “In a crisis requiring quick action, anger gave us the focus we needed to succeed,” he writes. In modern politics, however, “anger undermines democracy,” Shenkman argues. “People who are angry cannot see others’ point of view. Angry people don’t compromise.”
...............
But still, we let ourselves believe them, especially if they offer easy narratives and scapegoats. Voters “do not want the truth,” Shenkman writes. “We want hope. If the truth robs us of hope, we don’t want to hear it.” Skepticism, he explains, requires higher-order thinking and consumes more energy, time and brain power.
.

.

I blame the media for dwelling so much on Trump and his tactics. America, We have a big problem... I will fix it... I will make American great again...
Fear and Hope over and over drowning out the other candidates.

 

[Astronuc]

Do you take a dim view of those who have lost their jobs to foreign competition? Do you take a dim view of young men and women who have graduated college with $80k debt and no prospect of employment?

What are Trump's plans for addressing US corporations contracting for lower cost labor overseas, burgeoning student debt, and perceived lack of opportunities for university/college graduates?

Why do so many students take on such large debt? Why didn't they work and save (with their parents) for college? Why didn't they find a lower cost alternative? How about working while in school, or during summers?Meanwhile - some comedic relief - Johnny Depp stars as Donald Trump in Gloriously Absurd Funny or Die Movie
https://www.yahoo.com/movies/johnny-depp-stars-as-donald-trump-in-gloriously-160258808.html

Depp has the look.

 

[Dotini]

What are Trump's plans for addressing US corporations contracting for lower cost labor overseas, burgeoning student debt, and perceived lack of opportunities for university/college graduates?

Depp has the look.

As far as I know , Trump plans to lower US corporate taxation to 15% and to "make much better deals" in order to bring a flood of US jobs back home from China, Japan and Mexico. And of course build the Great Wall. In brief, he is selling the slogan "Make America Great Again", a different way of saying "Peace and Prosperity". And of course populist nationalists are lapping it up. I think they are desperate, sincere and committed.

But please don't mistake me for a Trump fan, I'm already retired and wealthy. I haven't voted for a major party presidential ticket for the last 6 election cycles. I have thought Trump was an amusing loose cannon who would soon enough launch himself through the rails of the galleon to the bottom of the sea. But it now seems Trump will not self-destruct, so it's up to the establishment to take him down with dirty tricks since there's no way they will have a better message. Cue Donald Segretti.

Johnny Depp as Donald Trump (http://www.funnyordie.com/slideshows/94b53afd14/9-very-classy-photos-from-the-fodtrumpmovie?_cc=__d___&_ccid=57698c4cefe2c0f4)

 

[BobG]

Rubio's poor performance was a bit unexpected. It appears he's another 4 years away from being a viable candidate.

Christie trashed him in the last debate; Rick Santorum's endorsement of Rubio ended up as a Christie attack ad against Rubio (worst endorsement ever, even worse than Palin's endorsement of Trump), plus $6 million worth of attack ads run by Bush or groups supporting Bush.

But still, between Bush and Kasich, Trump had $5 million worth of attack ads aimed at him and he won. And Bush had the least amount of money spent on attack ads against him (a little less than $3 million spent mainly by Rubio) and he barely beat out Rubio.

Rubio survived, but only because Bush didn't do any better than Rubio. Kasich's a long shot to raise the money needed to compete in states past New Hampshire. All in all, it was a win for both Trump and Cruz (who barely spent any money or time in New Hampshire and still came in third).

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...al-candidates-attacks-new-hampshire.html?_r=0