The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Jeff Lebowski]

See that's a trick question. Maybe someone wants to chime in on the election but they don't want to cop to being a 'Mr. Obvious wannabe.' Also, maybe a 'Mr. Obvious wannabe' has spoken their peace and don't want to feel obligated to have to post additional insight. Either way I think you've put people here in kind of a difficult position with this post.

Allow me...

I predict that the next president will be either Hillary or Trump. Most likely Hillary.

Candidates generally tend to the extremes during the primaries and then merge to the center during the general election.

There are a lot of dumb voters out there.

"Johnson" is a slang term for penis. I can give you examples of typical usage if you like.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Mitt is already polling at 22% and he's not even in the race yet!

I think 15% would be a very easy target to hit in this particular election cycle.

[Omaha 680]

Allow me...

I predict that the next president will be either Hillary or Trump. Most likely Hillary.

Candidates generally tend to the extremes during the primaries and then merge to the center during the general election.

There are a lot of dumb voters out there.

"Johnson" is a slang term for penis. I can give you examples of typical usage if you like.

You forgot to allow for a possible Hillary indictment and resulting Biden nomination at the convention

[BlueK]

You have to score 15% or better in a national poll to participate in televised debates---call it the Ross Perot Rule. A 3rd Party candidate has no chance. Hillary is the next POTUS.

yeah, and even if someone polled at 15% the debate commission which only really exists to prop up the two major parties would not hold itself to that rule anyway. They're corrupt. The two major parties control a lot of the polling, so all they have to do is make sure enough polls don't ask about anyone other than Trump or Hillary. If a few polls not tied to them shows Johnson or anyone else at above 15%, they would just commission enough other polls that leave the independent candidate out and then count those as 0% and it would average below 15%. It really is a joke.

[Shaka]

Language warning.

[Uncle Ted]

yeah, and even if someone polled at 15% the debate commission which only really exists to prop up the two major parties would not hold itself to that rule anyway. They're corrupt. The two major parties control a lot of the polling, so all they have to do is make sure enough polls don't ask about anyone other than Trump or Hillary. If a few polls not tied to them shows Johnson or anyone else at above 15%, they would just commission enough other polls that leave the independent candidate out and then count those as 0% and it would average below 15%. It really is a joke.

Yep... it is a joke. The two corrupt parties don't want a third choice. Very few polls include any third party candidate in their questions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0eb20fa0c6ba2

When Johnson's name is added to the polling question he has to be making both parties very nervous...

[Uncle Ted]

Language warning.

[Uncle Ted]

You have to score 15% or better in a national poll to participate in televised debates---call it the Ross Perot Rule. A 3rd Party candidate has no chance. Hillary is the next POTUS.

Hillary may need to win California first...

Ex-Bill Clinton adviser says there's a chance Hillary Clinton won't win nomination

A former political adviser and pollster to former President Bill Clinton says there's a chance Hillary Clinton won't win the Democratic nomination for president.


In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Douglas Schoen laid out possible scenarios.


"A Sanders win in California would powerfully underscore Mrs. Clinton's weakness as a candidate in the general election. Democratic superdelegates--chosen by the party establishment and overwhelmingly backing Mrs. Clinton, 543-44--would seriously question whether they should continue to stand behind her candidacy," he wrote.
[...]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-bill-...in-nomination/

[Maximus]

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

The writing was on the wall. He did masterfully endorse him while simultaneously keeping him at arm's length so as not to get Trump juice on his suit.

[Maximus]

The writing was on the wall. He did masterfully endorse him while simultaneously keeping him at arm's length so as not to get Trump juice on his suit.

just dashes any resemblance of hope romney will jump in

[PaloAltoCougar]

I didn't listen to much of Hillary's foreign policy speech today, nor will I, as she's a difficult "listen" for me. But Trump's remarkably nasty, personal, adolescent myriad tweets (seriously, has there ever been a thinner-skinned, hotter-headed candidate?) take me back to one of my favorite foreign policy incidents (at least in my lifetime): the Cuban Missile Crisis. I was only ten, but I followed it very closely (family still needles me about my youthful nerdiness when it came to politics), and would later take a couple of seminars and read a lot of memoirs from those involved. We have never been so close to nuclear war, with a couple of moments when people literally had their fingers on the button (or switch). Some advisers went home one evening thinking it would be the last time they'd ever see their families.

I don't think I'm being hyperbolic when I surmise that if a Trump-like U.S. President or Soviet Premier had been involved, war would have resulted, with the incineration of many millions. I suspect a Trump defender would say he'd be kept in check by the brilliant, seasoned advisers he'll have around him (that assumes facts not in evidence, btw), but why should we hold on to the false hope that he'll change his demeanor when Trump continues to declare, most recently this week, that "You think I'm going to change? I'm not going to change." I believe this more than pretty much anything else he's said in the campaign. We've been warned.

[SCcoug]

Maybe I'm not as great a student of history as yourself but Nikita Khrushchev seemed pretty bombastic. Still I'd rather not tempt fate.

[frank ryan]

Maybe I'm not as great a student of history as yourself but Nikita Khrushchev seemed pretty bombastic. Still I'd rather not tempt fate.

He didn't want nuclear war.

[SCcoug]

He didn't want nuclear war.

I'm sure Trump doesn't either. Point being they both talk(ed) a loud, threatening game.