But Seriously...

Is it too much to ask for a temperature check about how people feel on the Presidential race?

I don't have any one person I like completely, though I thoroughly despise Cruz and Carson and don't trust Clinton. I'm warm on Rubio, Christie, Bush, really like Kasich and Sanders and I don't know what to make of Trump (he runs the gamut for me from rational and on-point to completely batshit insane and dangerous).

I'm genuinely curious to hear other people's opinions on the other candidates.

 

I'm a liberal so I won't speak on the Republican candidates. I'm also someone who works in politics for a living, both in the public and private sector so take that for what it's worth.

I think Clinton is running a truly awful campaign that is shining a light on everything people hate about the Clintons and politicians in general. Her attacks on Sanders are nakedly fake and completely out of line with the tone of the actual primary. Her baggage regarding Wall Street is really weighing her down, yet she is handling it horribly. Bill Clinton just came out and said Bernie supporters (and Bernie by proxy) are sexist, completely misreading the tone of the campaign.

But the biggest issue I have with her campaign is that she has no vision whatsoever, at least none that she is sharing with the voters. Clearly, people are fed up enough with the system (be it political or economic) that they want to hear something genuinely new about how to move the country in the right direction. Yet the reason she has given in speeches and during the debate for why people should vote for her is so that Republicans don't gain the White House. Compare that to Sanders, who is calling for a revolution and a fundamental change to way things are done. You might not agree with him, but he is galvanizing a large segment of the voting population who have either checked out of the process or have spent the last batch of elections voting for the lesser of two evils.

I think Clinton still gets the nomination, but South Carolina looms very large right now. If Sanders can stay close, then this thing really is up in the air. If not, he isn't out by a long shot, but I think Clinton will get the nomination relatively easy.

 

See that's the kind of expertise that really interests me. Would you mind expanding more on how you think this will play out? At least as far as the Sanders vs. Clinton thing.

My background is in public speaking. Got my degree in it, actually one of those majors that is insanely useful in unexpected ways and I still reference the experience and material on a near daily basis at work. Take that for what it's worth, but I believe that someone's talent as a speaker can win them votes from people who would disagree with their views (Obama, great example). As someone at CNN just remarked as well, Clinton says "I" in her speeches whereas Sanders says "we." Completely different approach, and even if their policies were exactly the same, I think that difference in approaches is what will swing this to Sanders (also his use of humor is smart, and he's very good at it). Plus his increasing use of the word "revolution" is this year's "Yes we can!" It's a call to action that is scary good at controlling people.

Swing for the fences prediction: something else BIG comes out Clinton's closet and she is basically forced to withdraw from the race.

That's basically me. I live in Texas, for the longest time I didn't vote on the logic basis that my vote didn't matter because we were going for the GOP name anyway (why we still have the electoral college I don't know). Then I grew up and realized people are literally dying to protect my right to vote, so even if it doesn't technically matter I needed to out of principle. I picked the lesser of two evils. I've been trying to identify myself as belonging to a certain party so that it was easier to explain (closest I got was libertarian, then log cabin republican) but nothing seemed to fit. I've just settled on saying I "I vote for who makes the most sense while talking the least about religion in any way."

 

This election is a cluster fuck, pure and simple.

Hillary has so many scandals swirling around her, I can't even count them all. The bitch is crooked and everything I hate about politicians.

Bernie....well I'm sure Bernie is a good guy and well meaning in his intentions, but he's not cut out for the job. Letting BLM protesters shout him off stage not once, but twice? Nah thanks, I think we need someone to lead, not get the fuck out of the way. Also, if you watch Bernie's rallies there is one thing I've noticed....his supporters are young. Never had a job young. Never paid taxes young. He wants to raise taxes by like 50% to pay for all his free shit. We give enough free shit as it is and it just makes the folks that get free shit want more free shit without contributing to society.

Trump. Sweet Jesus, the dude is a train wreck on cocaine. And sadly, sometimes he makes the most sense. But I shudder to think what would happen if we gave him the keys to the kingdom and the nuclear launch codes. I honestly don't think the guy is stable enough to lead this country.

Every other GOP candidate...they just pick and choose what Trump platforms they can parrot without sounding quite as insane to try and take votes away from the front runner.

We're pretty much fucked.

 

Yes, you're pretty much fucked. The circuses went out of business because they cannot compete with the over two fucking years of absolute clown shoes America refers to as an "election".

I mean seriously....THIS is the best this country can come up with?

Fuck Clinton, she sucks and there's nothing dumber than people who ride the coat tail of their last name into the White House (or the dipshits who vote them in). Adams or Roosevelt you are NOT, bitch. She's a blathering, cackling criminal.

Ted Cruz is the worst politician in America, and Fred Phelps-level insane. Just because he wears an expensive suit and smiles doesn't make him any less crazy than those wild-eyed, piss-soaked yammering nutballs who scream about Jesus through a bullhorn on street corners. He believes in zombies, monsters and space-gods. He can never. Be president. Of anything. EVER.

Sanders has a game plan he at least says a lot of things I agree on. But goddamnit man, stop trying to get people to like you and learn about your economy instead. Be an asshole. Obama tried the same thing and look how well that worked out.

Trump is good at being an asshole, he's also good at bankrupting corporations (more than a couple), bankrupting casinos (which isn't possible), marrying brain-dead trophy wenches, trying to sue comedians over jokes, and letting his dead daddy's blood money save his doughy ass while writing a book called "The Art Of The Deal". Not to mention his "birther" nonsense nobody brings up anymore. Points for audacity and literally nothing else. He's a fuckhead, I've hated him my whole life and I always will.

At the next debate, whatever babbling mongoloid with 60,000 teeth in their mouth hosts it should try asking "Does even one of you know how a bill becomes a law?" This fucking nonsense theory that somehow somebody who knows nothing about politics would make a great politician needs to drop its punchline already, it's tired.

 

I honestly think the past two administrations have completely and totally divided our country. The dichotomy between the past two presidents and what they stand for is amazing....like there is no middle ground.

And now each side is going for the most ultra right or left candidate just to assure they get their way. No compromises. Total annihilation of the other side.

If there actually was a sane candidate that was firmly in the middle between the previous two administrations, neither side would want them because compromise = losing.

This mindset has completely destroyed the middle class of the country and just widened the gap between the haves and the have nots. Anyone that has payed even a passing moment studying history knows exactly what comes next...Hint: It's not good.

 

This is an election where political outsiders (namely Trump and Sanders) are getting farther then they ever have(excluding Ross Perot in 1992, but that was because he burned a ton of his own money and the rules have vastly changed since then--primarily because he got that far). If you had asked me a year ago whether either Trump or Sanders would be relevant right now I would've probably laughed.

It occurred to me the other day that perhaps this is (at least part of) Obama's legacy*. He ran on a platform of change, yet sold out/entrenched the establishment so much that people on both sides of the aisle will vote for anyone who isn't establishment.

There was a hilarious Chris Rock line during the 2008 campaign. Going off of memory: "Bush has fucked up so bad that a rich white man is having trouble becoming President!" Maybe Obama's line should be "Obama has fucked up so bad that the entrenched party establishment can't push their own guys!" or something similar.

*The one thing Obama should get credit for (his historically bad presidency not withstanding) is that now having a black man in the oval office is not the insane proposition it was even 10 years ago (no one was really taking Obama seriously in the beginning of February 2006). As a direct result of Obama being President we can say things like "Hillary has a legitimate shot(shudder)" without sounding completely out of touch with reality. If only he(Obama) had been even remotely effective as well...

 

True, but he was known for giving one of (if not the) the best speeches of the 2004 convention. My point was that if someone went around in February 2006 acting like a black president was simply going to happen that election cycle, he would have been mocked. Rather loudly. That's not the case anymore.

 

I think you'd be surprised by how much the past two administrations have in common (Bush initiated TARP/Obama continued; Obama didn't close Gitmo, upped drone strikes, maintained a more active role in mideastern affairs) I'd argue both were closer to each other economically than Obama is to Sanders.

I think both the mainstream Democrats and Republicans have shifted right over the past three decades, including the establishment, though the democratic voters and the party (to a much lesser extent) have shifted back left. I'd also argue that when it comes to extreme positions and unwillingness to compromise, while both sides have been guilty, it's been far more pronounced on the Republican side. This study shows that pretty clearly: http://www.voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm

The truth is that the country really has become more divided. Pundits talk about how most of us are just moderates and if a true moderate candidate entered the race, they'd win, but I just don't think that's true. The parties have adapted to where their constituencies are, at least in public. In private, they are all still committed to the status quo and corporate-focused economic policy (on this, trust me).

What I have to say had probably been said already by a lot of people, but here are my thoughts:

Primaries wind up being about momentum and general name recognition. With Sanders' win tonight, he has the momentum and is going to get a lot more name recognition. (Same for Republicans. Just watch how many news stories focus on him now) That will help in states where Clinton is beating him big, in large part because people don't know much about Sanders.

Clinton right now is depending on large part by the minority vote, while Sanders is banking on huge turnout among young people. This isn't a bad strategy. Keep in mind Obama won a bunch of states in 2008 because of abnormally high youth turnout (he won North Carolina by destroying with young people despite losing every other age demo).

If I was Sanders, I'd stay on message, but also really start hitting on how his policies would be better for African-Americans. The media would do him a huge favor by dredging up Clinton's less-than stellar record on race relations because right now, she has the African-American vote fairly secure. If I'm Sanders' campaign, I start bringing up welfare reform and how it screwed over a lot of poor African-American mothers.

At some point, the media will start attacking Sanders for numerous reasons, both legitimate and out of concern for their corporate interests. The question is just whether they do it during the primary or general. Contested primaries are great for the media so I expect them to do whatever they can to keep the race close, which means hitting Clinton a lot.

I want to see what the polls are saying to really get a sense of Sanders' bump from tonight's results. The good thing for him is he's raised a lot of money so he isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The bad news is he is currently trailing by 20-30 points in most upcoming states. Again, let's see what the polls are saying in a week.

Regarding Clinton, it's tough to say what will happen because there are two big issues hanging over her:
1) email scandal: the base doesn't care about it, and think its a smear job by the Republicans. But if something major happens, that kills her. But it has to be an indictment or something close. Anything less and it won't matter in the primaries.
2) the paid speeches: at some point she might have to release them, but even if she does, it can look real bad, even if it's not truly that bad what she said. But if it comes out she was cheerleading for them, as some reports suggest, it could be really bad.

To sum up, I still think Clinton has this. She has the money, the endorsements, and the DNC who will do anything to help her win. But Sanders' has the message, the momentum, and doesn't have the potential scandals that Clinton has. This has been the most unpredictable election in my short lifetime, so everything I just said is probably wrong.

 

I agree with a lot of what Goodlife just said.

If we get another establishment candidate, a RINO or DINO, then you are really getting the same thing.

The establishment from both parties will continue:

-Endless War - they will both send our young people to Syria or wherever else they need to. Iran is starting to settle oil trades in Euro, you know who else tried that? Saddam Hussein. You now where he is now, don't you?
-Support Ass Rape By Wall St - Look at where candidates major donations come from, think they are going to do anything substantial there?
-Open Borders - Neither party will enforce the laws on the books let alone slow the flow or penalize businesses using illegal labor.
-Destroy the Middle class - Neither is talking about all of the jobs or industries being off-shored. Obama just signed the TPP, do you think either party is going to start going backwards now?
-Deficit Spending - Both will continue to spend more than we take in and finance debt with new issuance of debt.

They really aren't even separate and distinct parties any more; they argue around the margins, issues that affect a very small percentage of people, to keep up the illusion but on issues that affect everyone they are indistinguishable.

 

No. The best the United States can come up with would never run for President. Why would they? Mostly, because of what Oden said. The brightest people are not dumb enough to run, because they know they couldn't implement real change. (And, yes, they're indistinguishable - but, don't kid yourself, short of an actual revolution, "the people" wouldn't stand for anything that distinguishes them anyway.) And, the innovators are off doing business to make a shit ton of money, or build a big business empire or whatever.

 

Make no mistake, Ted Cruz is probably the smartest candidate up there. Look at his Harvard record. He is also, in my opinion, 100% a power hungry psychopath. He is the most hated man in Washington for a reason. While that is a spectacular feat, this is not a good thing. He has no intention of pushing change, even if the houses would cooperate with him. He orchestrated a government shutdown, and other shutdown attempts, precisely to derail government, nt out of some ideological compunction. His goal is to not make government effective. He likes playing games with people's lives. He likes to wield that kind of control; look how well he did as a young senator. He knows *exactly* what the office's responsibilities are, and that is the only thing giving him an erection. Be afraid of this man, he is Stephen King's Senator Stillson.

Trump's talking points are mostly illegal, and thanks to his foreign policy bluster, he is internationally hated by all of our allies. For good reason. He is running his campaign like a WWE episode. As VI says he has no idea what the job entails. He just knows he wants it, or he too is playing a game.

I find the popularity of these two particularly jarring. They are not fit for any office. They are the worst of what America has to offer, but the yokels eat it up.

 

A friend of mine said something amusing about Trump: "The last time someone won the Presidency without any of the minority vote...was before the minorities could vote."

 

And this is the man who views science as a belief system, rather than a methodology for examine natural phenomena. Sweet Jumping Jesus , we are totally fucked.

 

He does not believe that. You cannot believe one thing out of his mouth. If it is Tuesday and the sun is shining he will tell you it is Saturday and raining if it moved his cause. He is playing evangelicals for their vote. His religious pandering is so blatantly disingenuous in its audacity that they buy it is astonishing.

The only belief system Ted has is whatever advances Ted Cruz. The only people who come out in support of Ted Cruz are his donors and the fools who vote for him. Think about Kentucky. They voted away their healthcare system because the religious right candidate would do something about gays, even when he legally could not. Same idea here. Evangelicals vote religious no matter what. Not one person who personally knows him, professionally or personally, has said anything good about him. Probably because he doesn't know anyone personally; this is a man who has no friends. His own family is disgusted by him. I can't think of anyone this unlikable since Nixon.

 

Bang on. I got into it with my Dad last night. He's very conservative and said he would be fine with Cruz. But his only basis was he liked Cruz for calling out ethanol and its subsidies as bullshit. Which is really stupid and not a key point. But unfortunately, though my Dad is a smart man and usually reasonable, he's got so much liberal hate from business related problems and some excess Fox News consumption that he is a bit vengeful, and I think thats why he likes Cruz. As soon as I went on saying that NOBODY likes or has a good thing to say about Cruz, he didn't have much of a rebuttal.

Clinton is a fucking robot and a manipulative snake. #ImWithHer is the worst fucking hashtag and must have been created by the Oxygen network. You would think it was related to Oprah's Weight Watchers campaign. I don't like Obama the president but think Obama the dude is fairly likeable. HRC is neither and even her pandering media and public appearances to make her likable fall WAY short.

Love Sander's idealism and belief in himself and his views and think his crusade against campaign financing is admirable and needed. But he has no real grasp of economics and finances, its laughable, and he's just very unelectable.

Bloomberg is interesting. He's kind of a whackjob and is still in favor of big government, but he's closer aligned to a lot of my personal views than anyone else out there right now.

Related, one of my friends from college transferred to Georgetown, went to work on Capitol Hill his last 2 years and actually was Chief of Staff for two different congressmen/senators in his early/mid 20s. The senator retired and they, together with another Washington bigwig, opened a lobbying firm. They've done very well as you can imagine, and his FB/IG is tons of impressive pictures from his constant travel and golf trips. Amongst all of this, he's a very interesting and fair political voice. He was a Blue Dog (worked for Heath Shuler) and then shaded further left. So despite out ideological differences at times, his intelligence, candor, and understanding of the political system was fascinating to read. We exchanged multiple emails during the 2012 campaign and since.
Well, I imagine due to lobbying interests, he is ALL IN on Clinton. Gone is the neutral, slight bias and measured takes. He's become a fanboy and cheerleader using all the dumb hashtags. He still has long informed takes and political commentary...but its all deifying her as the only truly political literate candidate and groveling over her "unparalleled resume". He's close to being muted till December.

 

FBI raid on remaining Oregon occupiers live feed: