Who should a Democrat support for the Republican nomination?
That is, who is Hillary most likely to be able to beat?
Entirely a personal opinion but I think Trump’s the only one who might beat her. So, a Deomcrat should argue for Cruz or Rubio?
But then maybe I’m entirely wrong about Trump.
Entirely a personal opinion but I think Trump’s the only one who might beat her.
I hope Trump wins. If not Trump, then Sanders. But I have to say I think Trump might lose to Clinton because he might have a melt down. He is certain to motivate some part of her base. Not African Americans perhaps but some middle aged women anyway.
I think that either Rubio or Cruz would beat her. I think people really don’t like her and the more she speaks, the more they will remember how much they do not like her. But then I think Sanders might have a chance except the DNC is fixing it for Hillary.
FWIW the polls say that Trump is the only Republican she’d beat in the final.
Loudmouth braggart vs lying crook. Should it perhaps be settled on the grounds that only she is actually a traitor?
“Loudmouth braggart vs lying crook”
Which one’s which?
Trump wouldn’t just beat her. He’d probably trigger her into having a stroke live on TV.
All the other Republican candidates seem to think Hillary is some sort of Machiavellian genius. Trump is the only one who sees her as incompetent and brittle.
If Hilldog was a political prodigy, she’d have been president by now. She wouldn’t be facing such a strong grassroots challenge from a geriatric SDS retread. And she wouldn’t be constantly dogged with talk of indictments.
dearieme – “Should it perhaps be settled on the grounds that only she is actually a traitor?”
Isn’t that a requirement for Democratic candidates?
Hillary needs the media to go boots and all in kicking her opposition to death. She is useless on her own. She needs them to do her dirty work for her. Trump is a problem because he doesn’t care. The rest of the Republican field is afraid of the media and they show it.
I want to see Cruz on the Supreme Court though. Ideally by taking Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat.
Trump or Clinton in the White House would be a disaster. The other Republican contenders I do not know enough about. However I would say any one would be better than those two as long as they are not a Democrat.
“Trump or Clinton in the White House would be a disaster”
Well, Clinton obviously since she would follow in the footsteps of disaster Obama.
But Trump?In which universe can he do actually worse than what the dem ALREADY have?
Does it really matter who wins? Governing the USA is like steering a container ship: it takes a long time to make any change in direction.
People predicted disaster when Clinton won, when Bush won, when Obama won; and again when each of them was re-elected. So far the sky hasn’t fallen.
The bookies’ odds imply that HC is favourite against either Trump or Rubio.
Bloomberg as an independent looks like the best choice from here. Not that I’m a fan, but once you’ve eliminated all the bad options…
Behind the visceral enjoyment of watching Trump kick seven bells out of the Republican establishment is an important point: the short-term damage Trump would do as President would be far less than the long-term damage any of the other candidates would do, merely by prolonging utterly corrupt, two-party corporate politics in the US.
No way is Trump another Mussolini, but Hillary sure as sh!t is another Clinton.
Had my ancestors possessed a touch more imagination and emigrated to the States, I would be holding my nose, voting for Trump, and then settling back to enjoy the show.
I had an interesting analysis by a new US Hedge Fund client of mine yesterday. His quants had done a statistical analysis of the outcome of the POTUS election if Trump won the nomination for the Republicans. While extraordinarily complex due to Electoral College etc., here are the major points:
-The key is which voters will leave the house in November and actually cast a vote;
-Many Republicans do not like Trump. Maybe not to the point of voting for the Democratic candidate, but to the point of staying home and not voting;
-Many formerly lazy Democrats will be so scared of having Trump win that there will be a much larger than normal turnout on election day;
-If either Clinton or Sanders become the next POTUS, they will get rid of the carried interest exemption by executive order which instantly doubles this fellows tax rate.
Therefore, even though he is a Republican/Libertarian with Trump more and more likely to win the Republican nomination, he feels it prudent to spend money and hire the likes of me to put the pieces in place for him to have the option to leave the US tax system before Inauguration Day in January 2017.
In short he is looking at the “Exit option” I describe here. https://www.quora.com/If-Bernie-tries-to-tax-the-wealthy-wont-they-just-find-new-loopholes-and-tax-havens/answer/David-S-Lesperance
I was fascinated by the Humanus Economis analysis. Hopefully for my law practice he shares it with his buddies.
“So far the sky hasn’t fallen.”
But the US gets deeper and deeper into debt, the government gets bigger and bigger, and worse and worse, the judicial system gets more and more corrupt, and the proportions of white people keeps dwindling.
“The bookies’ odds imply that HC is favourite against either Trump or Rubio.”
Rubbish. All the A vs B polls show HC thrashes Trump, but that Rubio beats HC.
@ David Lesperance
Doesn’t Trump also want to close the capital gains loopholes?
Also I don’t see how the boy Rubio can beat Clinton. He’s an utter light-weight. A few weeks of Trumping by The Donald will do for him I think.
If Trump win the Republican nomination then Hilary could be the least bad option. The only Republican who has the potential to beat her is Rubio.
change of subject – Delingpole on Twitter has just described the LHTD as “totally the Mo Ansar of economic commentary”.
*snort*
Rubbish. All the A vs B polls show HC thrashes Trump, but that Rubio beats HC.
The bookies know that, but they also know that polls in February don’t mean much. The Democrats and the media (redundant, I know) have not yet started to attack Rubio, and most voters aren’t paying much attention to presidential politics yet.
Rubio is an establishment Republican and the path to victory for an establishment Republican in November is very, very difficult. Basically, Rubio would have to hold all the states Romney won in 2012 and then flip FL, OH, VA and CO. Or maybe substitute NM and NH for CO, something like that.
Trump is a little different in that his appeal is different and he could potentially put some traditionally blue states like MI, WI and PA in play, but his net favoribility ratings are no bad that it’s hard to see him succeeding. Everyone has an opinion on the guy – he’s been a household name for 30 years – so another 8 months of campaigning is not going to change anyone’s mind.
He mentioned this possibility but put that particular promise down to a Trump “Say whatever sounds populist” promise. He thought that if pushed, Trump would at most put it forth for Congressional consideration (where it would die).
Both Hillary and Sanders have said they would go with killing it by Executive Order. This means an overnight doubling of his tax rate.
While he gave me the 30,000 foot view, he did say that the quants had basically come out with the analysis that no one was a polarising as Trump and that Rubio or Cruz would not inspire lazy Democrats to actually get out and vote (which requires more effort than answering a phone or front door to a pollster). In short, the usual close footrace.
He did mention something about the Electoral College votes in the Rust Belt being the key decider in the election.
“Rubio is an establishment Republican”
Disagree entirely. He is just the last non-nutter left standing, given Trump was somehow allowed to compete in a Republican nomination race and that Cruz has shown himself to be unelectable. He therefore appears establishment,but his voting record is anything but.
And I think the bookies’ odds reflect the fact that Rubio is get unlikely to secure the Republican nomination. If he gets it, he will trash HC.
I’d like to see market for HC vs Rubio that just refunds the bet in the event that that is not the line-up in November.
No, Rubio wouldn’t beat Clinton. He’s nothing but a grinning robot, the most perfect living embodiment of a sock puppet politician I’ve ever seen.
There’s nothing to him.
Also, Clinton won’t beat Trump. He’d maul her.
It doesn’t matter what A v B polls say at this point, because a large chunk of the electorate will change its mind when it sees A v B go head to head.
Personality tends to win in politics, particularly presidential politics. That’s why Algore didn’t win, why Kerry didn’t win, and why McCain and Romney didn’t win. They either had no discernible personality or seemed actively unpleasant compared with their more charismatic opponents.
Mrs Clinton is an actively unpleasant person. She has limited scope to win over voters who currently don’t like her. Trump has already shown he can persuade all sorts of people, including traditional Democrats, to back him.
Steve – A couple of months ago I’d have laughed at this, but now I do think Trump might be able to do it. Still a slim chance – – he’d have to win over a ton of Blue collar democrats, but a chance nonetheless.
Still think it’s going to be Clinton though,
If nothing else this election cycle has been a load of free entertainment, Trump destroying Bush was just marvellous.
Please. Rubio is as establishment as they come, he’s no different from GWB or McCain. Amnesty, tax cuts, invade the Middle East to make it safe for democracy, etc. That platform doesn’t play in the upper midwest, which is why he’ll have to run all those states I mentioned above.
Out of curiosity, which states do you see Rubes flipping in his thashing of HRC? It is very hard to come up with any states that he could plausibly take other than the ones I Iisted. That’s a very narrow path to 270.
“The key is which voters will leave the house in November and actually cast a vote;
-Many Republicans do not like Trump. Maybe not to the point of voting for the Democratic candidate, but to the point of staying home and not voting;
-Many formerly lazy Democrats will be so scared of having Trump win that there will be a much larger than normal turnout on election day;”
This analysis, if you can call it that, is just so cliché, I wouldn’t know where to start.
As for being a quant, LTCM anyone?
Are the polls, pollsters and polling methodologies as reliable in the US as in recent polls in the UK?
If so, my money’s on a win for the GOP and Trump.
As I said, I was giving the summary of the executive summary, so sorry if that ended up sounding cliche.
The important thing is not that you or I put any stock in his in-house analysis. Rather that he did, to the tune of actually putting a significant amount of money into the exercise of acquiring a second citizenship and residence in a country where he can reproduce his current business and personal life.
Trump, if elected, would likely sit down with the ‘Presidential Contract’ and discover exactly what he’s obligated to do. He’d find he’s obligated to run the country (in some useful sense) but that promises to voters are not contractual items. So my bet is he’d hire a bunch of guys to run the country, and enjoy himself as ‘being President’, intervening in public whenever it suited but letting the lads get on with it.
Cruz, if elected, would blaze the trail for the return of the Inquisition, and appoint the modern equivalent of Witchfinder General (seeking out gays and Muslims and Democrats and Socialists and….). People would disappear. Increasingly, nobody would talk about it.
The other Republicans posture as shallow imitations of Cruz. Shallow, empty things.
Clinton could run the country. She’s got the connections to get the usual crowd in to run it as usual.
Sanders is Jeremy Corbyn light. Good news is he couldn’t run the country.
Bottom line, vote against Crud. The other possible contenders will – if they win – start trying to turn the ship, but it’s slow and difficult, so…
Slightly off topic. Is a capital crime different from a felony, or is a capital crime just a very serious felony?
Making state secrets available to enemies of the state would then be which or both?
Herr Hillary is massively despised. Should she be elected president, I would say it is the end of the United States. Not because of what she might do, but that The People would elect her.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html
FWIW. Clinton beats Trump, but not Cruz or Rubio
Sanders beats everyone – which makes you wonder about the polls
Clinton is unlikeable and very polarising. Cruz is unlikeable and polarising. Rubio is a Republican Obama – shallow and not very good. Trump is a buffoon. Sanders is a socialist. What a choice.
Trump’s appeal is so unusual in political terms that I don’t think anyone really has the first clue how well he would really do against either Sanders or Clinton. He could blow himself up or eviscerate either – who knows?
One thing, I bet he’ll change his message if he wins the GOP nomination and is up before the general electorate. Not suddenly become less un-PC, just shift the marketing, so to speak.
“Cruz, if elected, would blaze the trail for the return of the Inquisition, and appoint the modern equivalent of Witchfinder General (seeking out gays and Muslims and Democrats and Socialists and….). People would disappear. Increasingly, nobody would talk about it.”
How can people talk such bollocks? It really worries me.
I wouldn’t rule out Kasich at this stage ….
Hillary and Trump both inspire deep loathing, Sanders is Sanders, Cruz is Cruz and so on.
$5 says it’s Kasich.
BlokeInTejas said:
“Trump, if elected, … my bet is he’d hire a bunch of guys to run the country, and enjoy himself as ‘being President’, intervening in public whenever it suited but letting the lads get on with it.”
Much like Boris did in London; seemed to work well.
Richard Allan said:
“How can people talk such bollocks? It really worries me.”
Five minutes reading Murphy’s blog will show just what bollocks people can write.
But I rather liked the idea of reintroducing the Inquisition (although Cardinal Müller seems a bit too wet to run a really good one).
I’ll take that $5. Kasich won’t survive the scrutiny if he somehow manages to become relevant.
In general the American public is sick and tired of the status quo. Trump and Sanders are both popular because they offer something different. What that difference is doesn’t matter. This has been the case for over a decade now.
Kerry ran a close race with Bush II in 2004 despite the fact that a moldy slice of bread has more appeal than he does. Obama won by a large margin in 2008 by promising hope and change. The only reason Romney was even close in 2012 is that we ended up with, mostly, more of the same from Obama.
Excluding the party machines we would end up with a Trump Sanders match up. Overall which is worse personally, Trump’s egomania or Sanders’s socialism, will determine who actually votes. Personally I expect the party system to hand Cliton the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side with no superdelegates I don’t see Rubio or Cruz stopping Trump.
What would be interesting is if we get additional “third party” candidates that split the vote. If no one gets the needed 270 electoral votes the House then decides. Most likely the House would choose a Republican like Cruz or Rubio which would be a disaster for the Republican party. The public will view this as stealing the election and the 2018 midterms will actually be important to the average voter. Incumbents will throw out faster than you can say bye bye Republican majority.
Oh I forgot to add that of the candidates that are left I’d go with Trump.
Cruz and Rubio are both “neo con children of Reagan” whose ideology I find to be very dangerous to the good of the nation.
Trump may be a person I wouldn’t mind seeing run over by a steam roller but he is shaking up the party of no.
Trump doesn’t have a prayer of winning the general election. Not one shot in a million. To agree with me you just have to accept one thing:
The intellectual wing of the Republican Party, the business, science (dismal or otherwise), technology, and engineering types *will not vote for Trump*. They likely wouldn’t vote for Hillary either, but they //will not// vote for Trump.
My prediction today for a Clinton/Trump runoff would be something like 48% Clinton 40% Trump 12% Other with Clinton getting 404 EVs to Trump’s 134. That assumes Clinton would up AZ, MO, IN, NC, SC, GA in addition to what Obama carried in 2012.
Rubio/[Kasich or Portman] is quite clearly the best ticket to run against anything the Democrats trot out. Flipping just Florida and Ohio leaves the R’s 17 electoral votes short based on 2012 actual, so choose something that adds up to 17 out of the following battleground states and it’s clear that’s the ticket to do it:
[PA – 20]
[MI – 16]
[VA – 13]
[WI – 10]
[MN – 10]
[CO – 9]
[NV – 6]
[IA – 6]
[NM – 5]
[NH – 4]
Rubio/[Kasich or Portman] would be tough to beat and the collective conniption from the Democratic party at losing 352 to 186 after all the free stuff they spent 18 months promising would be hilarious.
The current head-to-head polling shouldn’t be taken as definitive where it comes to Trump.
He’s excellent at media manipulation and messaging to achieve his aim. Right now, his aim is to bring out the demographics he needs to win nomination as a Republican maverick outsider.
If and when he gets that sewn up, he’ll need to shift to bringing out the demographics he needs to win election as a Republican candidate.
Sure, it’s calculating and opportunistic, but that seems to fit with Trump’s entire mission.
I don’t think Hillary could beat the 114th name in the phone book. You pick the city.
Richard Allen – good question!
I think there are two answers
– minor exaggeration (as oft practiced in this idyllic site) helps illuminate the flavor of the crisis. I’m not sure, however, that I’ve exaggerated much vis a vis Crud
– practise; lots of practice. You’ll get the hang of it soon.
Social Justice Warrior – “Bloomberg as an independent looks like the best choice from here. Not that I’m a fan, but once you’ve eliminated all the bad options…”
So you think that a closeted control freak who would ban slurpies is a good option?
Interesting. Well not really.
BlokeInTejas – “Cruz, if elected, would blaze the trail for the return of the Inquisition, and appoint the modern equivalent of Witchfinder General (seeking out gays and Muslims and Democrats and Socialists and….). People would disappear. Increasingly, nobody would talk about it.”
Sounds good to me. Except you are just trolling and not actually offering anything useful or interesting. Worse than that really.
“Clinton could run the country. She’s got the connections to get the usual crowd in to run it as usual.”
Which is why people don’t want to vote for her. Record numbers of people think things are going wrong. More of the same does not seem a popular option this year.
ken – “FWIW. Clinton beats Trump, but not Cruz or Rubio
Sanders beats everyone – which makes you wonder about the polls”
Notice though that virtually all of these are too close to call. 2.8% is well within what ought to be the margin of error. Although as you say the odd thing is that Sanders beats everyone. Which means when the DNC anoints Hilary there are going to be a lot of disappointed people who will stay at home.
OriginalMichael – “Trump doesn’t have a prayer of winning the general election. Not one shot in a million.”
So by the inevitable Terry Pratchett rule, Ms Trump better start measuring up the Lincoln bedroom for Trump and his new wife. Let’s hope it is Megan Kelly.
“The intellectual wing of the Republican Party, the business, science (dismal or otherwise), technology, and engineering types *will not vote for Trump*. They likely wouldn’t vote for Hillary either, but they //will not// vote for Trump.”
First of all how many people do you think this applies to? The Republicans win with poor White votes. Not Silicon Valley. Second, want to bet? When they think about a Hilary Administration.
“Rubio/[Kasich or Portman] is quite clearly the best ticket to run against anything the Democrats trot out.”
Because running Fake Democrats against the Real Democrats worked so well for Romney and McCain. Rubio, or as I like to think of him, Miami’s own My Little Pony, looks like a disaster. As the campaign goes on, he can only get worse. The Republicans are insane if they think that a pretty little boy will work for them this cycle. Their voters do not want a Republican Obama.
Trump is a Real Democrat. But he annoys the right people. There is no reason to think someone who supports gun control, abortion, and immigration reform cannot win over Democrat voters.
BlokeInTejas – “minor exaggeration (as oft practiced in this idyllic site) helps illuminate the flavor of the crisis. I’m not sure, however, that I’ve exaggerated much vis a vis Crud”
So your defence is that you were being a c*nt for dramatic purpose?
As a Libertarian supporter, I cannot be more excited about the upcoming Trump/Palin ticket vs. Sanders/Lenin’s embalmed corpse. The entire US political system has denigrated to beyond farce at this point. I am just saddened that Hunter S Thompson is no longer around to sniff around this one.
Why would a democrat want a creator of a failed state abroad, an unblushingly corrupt receiver and giver of favours, an enabler of sexual predation against women, an habitual liar, a corporatist, etc(it’s a long list) to become president? That’s the bit I can’t get my head around.
Ljh: Because like Bertha in the unionised knocking shop, she’s got seniority.
SMFS,
“Rubio, or as I like to think of him, Miami’s own My Little Pony, looks like a disaster. ”
I think that Rubio would beat Hillary.
SMFS – “First of all how many people do you think this applies to? The Republicans win with poor White votes. Not Silicon Valley.”
Educated white voters are the second biggest voting demographic in the country after uneducated white voters. The Republican party won educated white voters by 12 percent in 2012 and still lost. Educated white voters won’t vote for Trump, therefore Trump loses and it won’t be close.
Having a known criminal in the White House isn’t as scary as you want to make it out to be, either. Hillary won’t be able to accomplish much because she won’t have the support of the legislature. As long as neither Sanders or Warren end up on the ticket I’m not too worried about the Democrats winning the White House as there doesn’t seem to be a viable plan for them to take a majority in the House.
Regarding Sanders and Warren, I very much doubt they’d be able to accomplish much either, but I despise their particular brand of hate speech, far moreso than Clinton’s.
SMFS
“So your defence is that you were being a c*nt for dramatic purpose?”
Certainly not. Who needs a defense for something freely done?
I do think Cruz and his ilk are especially bad for the world and bad for the USA, because they promise to bring (or re-introduce) the truly evil angle of naked evangelistic “Christian” religion into the governing of the State.
I agree that Corbyn light and Clitnone are no fun either, but Our Sainted Bern won’t win (so no need to worry about him beyond the fact that his nonsense still attracts ‘yoof’), and Hiraly will not change things much, nor seek to.