The 2016 Presidential General Election

tjohn said:
BG9 said:


Personally, I like Sanders stance on many things more than Clinton. An example is free tuition in public colleges, which is doable.

What would it cost and would it be a sustainable program?

Estimates vary. But it seems to be $65 billion a year. That is for public colleges with the current student body levels. 

Is it sustainable? When we have an unneeded and foolish war we have no problem instantly appropriating those kinds of sums. In FY 2003, the supplemental Iraq Freedom appropriation was 78 billion. In FY 2004 the supplemental and DOD amendments totaled 112 billion. 

Congress managed to quickly and without a sweat appropriate funds that would could instead have paid for three years of public colleges.

It all depends on where you want to put your priorities. We're supposedly the richest country in the world yet we can't seem to do what other democracies have done, free colleges. Germany even pays the tuition of foreigners, like Americans. who want to study in their colleges.


Bill Clinton was impeached and got more popular.

Of course that was by Republicans and any indictment would come under direction of a US Attorney and they are all Obama appointees. That makes an indictment extremely unlikely but for the same reason devastating if it happened.


Logically speaking Hillary Clinton should win the general election, but it is curious that the head-to-head leads she used to have over Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich have disappeared and she now lags even Ted Cruz.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html

Clinton still has a significant lead over Trump.  

*"Logic" as in "based on recent precedent and demographic and economic factors."


LOST said:

That's why I called it their problem.

There is never a "perfect" candidate. Eight years ago the Country elected a little known first term Senator with a foreign sounding name.

The Republican Party has won the popular vote only once in the last 25 years. After their defeat in the last election they did a post-mortem and concluded that they would not be able to win the Presidency this year unless they substantially increased their share of the Hispanic vote. What their Primary campaign has now done is the opposite. They have decreased their share of that demographic to almost zero.

There is a thought that Trump has brought in Democrats and Independents to his campaign and the Republican Party but I wonder how many of those Trump supporters actually voted for Obama in 2012.

In 2012, they concluded that the Hispanic market share was their problem. Is it their problem this year? Maybe not.


Bloomberg has announced that he will not run: 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-07/the-2016-election-risk-that-michael-bloomberg-won-t-take


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.