I'm not sure many do, they idolize her as an example of progressiveness, when it actual fact she espouses the war-hawk policy of neo-con republicans and has deep ties to Wall St.

But hey, America is ready for a female president :)

I know, but I don't think he's a socialist. I'd call him a social democrat.

IMO, Hillary lost her the 2008 nomination because she was very establishment and perceived as a fake, calculating politician. I see something similar happening here.

He is a social democrat centre left. Hilary is centre right.

Edited by scott21: 19/1/2016 10:52:31 PM

Clinton as a person is superficial and ambitious more than anything else. She's obviously very easy to dislike, but her Presidency will essentially be a third term of Obama, which is fine. A good President needn't be a good person.

:) golden

But sanders would be about as left as a US candidate could get. Most of the dems in the US are centre right or centrist and the republicans are far right. Has there been a more left leaning presidential candidate than sanders?

Nah, they really don't. The only people who want genuine radical change (which is what Trump represents) are the kind of people who believe that the homosexual agenda is sending America towards judgment day; the people who genuinely and sincerely believe that Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate.

Average Americans just want to feel secure in their lives and that will mean they take the safe option. If ever there were a time that Americans would have demonstrated their desire for real change it was 1992 - when the end of the Cold War meant national security was no longer a major issue, when they felt betrayed by Bush's 'no new taxes' pledge, and when a billionaire (Ross Perot - a far more reasonable candidate than Trump) ran a credible, populist independent campaign for the presidency and led both Clinton and Bush for months in the polls until August.

And yet Perot only won 18% of the vote and lost every state he ran in. It didn't happen in 1992; it won't happen in 2016.

Plenty of candidates (and even nominees) have been more left than Sanders throughout history. McGovern, Mondale, Bradley are just a few examples.

Sanders seems out of the ordinary because America has been drifting to the right for decades.

Trump has been succeeding because of a specific set of circumstances:

1- at a time of complete cynicism with politics, he has attracted some people with his "anti-politics" appeal
2- the republicans have a very large field with no clear establishment candidate for support to coalesce around (especially with Jeb bombing out).

In the above circumstances Trump has a level of support that gives him a plurality of the vote in the republican camp right now.

The key issue for me that hurts him is that he is an extremely polarising candidate. That gives him a core (sizeable) minority of support but also means he is hated.

Once it becomes clear that the Trump alternative in the republican primaries is Cruz or Rubio etc, I think as candidates drop out Trump will struggle to pick up their supporters.

Everyone who would be satisfied with a Trump candidacy would already be voting for him. Whereas I don't think that is the case for the rest of the field.

If I was Trump I'd want the field to stay as large as possible for as long as possible.

This!

Do people even know that it was Nixon who created the EPA (Environmental Protection Authority) and who opened up the American economy to China?

Could you imagine a republican doing that today???

Good to see Trump has received the 'Kiss of Life' from that intellectual giant, Sarah Palin....:lol:

Fair point. However seeing senior politicians rip into gun laws is frightening.

FU! I'm voting for Frank Underwood instead!:-K

I don't think we're going to know who either party's nominee is until Super Tuesday.

Sanders is going to give Hillary a good run in some of the early states, especially those states where the population is a bit whiter and a bit younger. This might give him a boost. But when Super Tuesday happens, it will be a battle of who has the best name recognition and the strongest organisation.

As for the Republicans, it is clear that Trump has by far the strongest plurality in a crowded field. But even now, about 60pc of republicans in polling are going to vote for someone else.

Once some more candidates drop out, it will be a test of who those people coalesce around, then we will have a better idea.

Spot on

You keep saying this, but a few pages back I linked an article which stated that Trump's support grows when the top 3 candidates are included.

Now, the closest one to Trump is Cruz. However, he's come under alot of fire recently. He's had to face very real questions of his eligibility for presidency (given his Canadian birth), his ties to Goldman Sachs/Citigroup and his insulting of the entire state of New York.

The governor of Iowa just told people for "anyone but Cruz" - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/terry-branstad-ted-cruz-defeat/. Additionally, Trump will take some of the support from the far-right evangelical types that Cruz is grooming with the endorsement of Sarah Palin, who believe it or not is very popular with the Tea Party Jesus types.

If Trump wins Iowa, he'll win New Hampshire given the massive lead he already has and the momentum that Iowa will give him. Then, he'll go on to sweep the South on Super Tuesday which will all but assure him of victory.

LastBroadcast may be right about the grouping of neocon republicans around Rubio, but I doubt many candidates are going to drop out. Yeb! has spent something in the order of 50 million, and Christie/Kasich would have dropped out already if they were going to do so. Even if all the neo-con republicans bar Rubio drop out, they STILL don't have enough percentage to beat trump.

Additionally, if Carson is to drop out, his voters will most likely go to either Cruz/Trump given the "anti-establishment" shtick of his campaign.

I honestly don't see how Trump can lose this.

The obvious flaw in this logic is that Perot was running independent. I agree, if Trump was running independent then he would have no hope.

Why is this Trump meme still living

Presidential elections aren't ever perceived as a party contest, they're a contest between individual candidates. Trump is a far less credible candidate than Perot.

Further to that, the problems with third party campaigns in getting exposure and interest didn't apply to Perot - that's why he led both Bush and Clinton for months. He even participated in the Presidential debates - his 'third party' status became quickly irrelevant. The most significant constraint on his candidacy was voters' fear of radical change, a constraint that applies even moreso to Trump.

I'd like to see some further polling results on a 3-way contest between Trump, Cruz and Rubio before giving credence to that suggestion. Mainly due to the fact that there is also a lot of polling out there stating that he is the most polarising candidate in the field - most liked, and most disliked.

I definitely agree that there is a chance the field stays large for a long time, which undoubtedly helps Trump.

One thing which makes me think that Trump is at least being perceived by Republicans as a big threat is the fact that Cruz has started criticising Trump in the last week or so.

Cruz's strategy had been to present himself as the "plausible, credible" candidate for those who like Trump but didn't believe him electable. So he had avoided criticising Trump directly, and had echoed milder versions of some of Trump's opinions.

The fact that Cruz has abandoned this, and turned on Trump makes me think that he must have internal polling indicating that Trump will be in the race for the foreseeable future.

The more I see this Bernie Sanders the more I like him.
It would be quite a revolution if he could do some of the common sense things he is saying.

#change would actually mean something.

All aboard the Bernie train :)

Feel the Bern :)

Palin wtf :lol: comparing trump to jesus :lol: and in the same speech blames obama for her son being arrested for domestoc violence.

WUT!!!! She is beyond ridiculous.

These Republican candidates are make George Bush look like a competent human.

She also said trump will kick isis' ass . I dont know whether to laugh or cry. The domestic violence thing was due to the fsct her son is a veteran and has ptsd . So she blames obama for ignoring veterans , even though her party is the reason why the veterans dont get looked after. Same party that vetoed 911 first repsonders compensation.

Edited by Mvfcarsenal16.8: 21/1/2016 05:26:42 PM

Then republicans would just change it back.

Its not as easy to change things in the US as other places.

Plus, people dont want to pay more taxes. Bottom line, in the US its every man for himself.

Good to see Fox News helping out the Democrat campaign, by throwing its weight behind Donald Trump....:lol: :lol: :lol:

Suddenly realised that Iowa is a week away. That came up quickly. This is going to be one crazy election.

Trump says he could ‘shoot somebody’ and his fans would still love him

January 24, 20169:51am

Staff writers with AP,news.com.au

ASPIRING US president Donald Trump says his supporters are so loyal they would stick by him even if he shot somebody.

The billionaire businessman, who is currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president, made the comments just nine days out from the Iowa caucuses opening voting in the 2016 campaign.

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Trump told an enthusiastic audience during a campaign rally at a Christian school in Sioux Center, Iowa. “It’s, like, incredible.”

Trump’s comments come as the debate about gun violence heightens in America following several highly publicised mass shootings.

Last month, 14 people were killed when two shooters opened fire in San Bernardino, California.

Trump, a supporter of the Second Amendment, has slammed US president Barack Obama for his use of executive orders to expand background checks on people who buy guns.

During the campaign rally, Trump also contrasted himself with rivals such as Texas senator Ted Cruz, his most serious challenger in the state, and went after conservative radio host Glenn Beck, who will be appearing at two rallies with Cruz.

He bashed Beck as a “loser” and “sad sack” and said former Alaska governor Sarah Palin’s endorsement, secured for Trump a few days earlier, was more important than if Beck had backed him.

Beck is among nearly two dozen conservative thinkers who penned anti-Trump essays for National Review magazine — a hit Trump to referred to repeatedly at the rally.

Another Republican candidate, Florida senator Marco Rubio, started a dash to the caucuses at Iowa State University in Ames, where he stressed that he represents the next generation of conservative leadership.

“Complaining and being frustrated alone will not be enough,” Rubio said. “It has to be someone who tells you exactly what they are going to do as president.”

Polls show Cruz and Trump leading in the state, but Rubio recently stepped up his Iowa campaign appearances in hopes of breaking into the top tier of candidates and putting himself in a stronger position for New Hampshire’s February 9 primary.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-and-his-fans-would-still-love-him/news-story/bb3319b82146c46a472ba48912ec4029