Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

quote:

---

Presidential frontrunners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump remain all tied up in a hypothetical matchup heading into 2016.

​

If the 2016 presidential election was held today, 37% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for Clinton, while 36% would vote for Trump. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that a sizable 22% would choose some other candidate, while five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

​

Clinton vs. Trump: Still A Dead Heat - Rasmussen Reports®

---

The next most recent was a CNN poll which gave Clinton a 49%-47% edge over Trump. I suspect both under-estimate the support Trump will snatch from black voters (the strong anti-immigration views of Trump combined with his social-conservative stances might earn him the highest GOP support among blacks since 1984)Here is the average of all the most recent polls (from the past month I think)

quote:

---

Real Clear average
Clinton 45.6
Trump40.8

​

realclearpolitics.com

---

Cruz does better on paper against Clinton, but he doesn't support deporting undocumented immigrants (that means he has less chance of getting significant black support imo)

quote:

---

Real Clear average
Clinton 45.0
Cruz 45.0
realclearpolitics.com

---

Trump does better against Sanders on paper, but I suspect Sanders will do better in the general against Trump (some recent polls suggest such) because Sanders can articulate the benefits of single-payer and the fact that Trump defended it's world-wide success in the famous August 2015 GOP debate.

quote:

---

Real Clear average
Sanders 44.3
Trump 42.3
realclearpolitics.com

---

The Sanders verses Cruz is a mix of very old and recent polls. Cruz has gained strength lately against all his opponents (general and primary)

quote:

---

Real Clear Average
Sanders 45.0
Cruz 41.7
realclearpolitics.com

---

I think the evidence (not just the polls btw) clearly shows that the Republicans have the best shot of winning if Clinton is the nominee (I suspect she will ).They will maul her over the gun issue (Obama ran in 2008 and 2012 as pro-gun so that issue was almost 100% off the table). I predict that the Republicans take the white house, though low energy prices (at present) give the Democrats a chance to squeak by. (Democrats can't expect another hurricane over New York late in the race to neutralize the strong energy/environment advantage the GOP enjoys. The super-hot summer of 2012 also helped minimize the GOP advantage on that issue)EDIT- I found an article that backs up what I said about blacks and immigration
Polls Don’t Capture Blacks’ Intense Debate Over Immigration – IMDiversityhere is a prediction of high at the pump gas prices in 2016
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Presidential polling is pure bullshit.
And if my choices are Clinton or Trump, I choose armed revolution.

---

I do think polls miss younger and poorer voters.Hillary verses Trump does seem like a scary set of alternatives.Hillary supported (verbally & diplomatically) a 2009 right-wing coup in Honduras against a democratically elected progressive. She had an unprecedented split with her President (Obama, of course) on this one, as he supported returning the democratically elected left-winger back to power. Sounds like a throwback to the Cold War when we overthrew democratically elected leader after democratically elected leader.Hillary has been in Washington for 24 years now, under 3 different 8 year administrations, and you know how many wars she opposed? From 1993-2001? Answer is 0. From 2001-2009? The answer is 0. 2009-2017? She wanted to do a lot more than an already war-active Obama (think Libya) would entertain. She opposed 0.She sounded downright crazy in her 2008 primary against Obama, criticizing him endlessly for even wanting to talk to Iran's leader ( "you want to sit down and have tea with a country we should be going to war with" or something). I remember watching her sit before the House Armed Services Committee in 2009 and crazy Mike Pence (now Governor of Indiana) was attacking Obama for being "weak on Iran". Hillary responded something like, "I made those same arguments with a passion for nearly a year, but he won and I lost". Thank God!Trump sounds more diplomatic at times than Hillary but other times he doesn't inspire confidence in his temperament.I have known lots of undocumented immigrants (including store owners) and I really hope he is joking about rounding them up. Your "armed" revolution part might be hyperbole, but he sure does promise to turn arms on 10 million plus residents (out of 320 million).

realclearpolitics.comClinton averages slightly better against Bush
realclearpolitics.comClinton against Cruz (Cruz leads by 1.8%)
realclearpolitics.comClinton v Rubio (Rubio +3.0%)
EvC Forum: LoginClinton is looking worse and worse. On balance, I would say this is the worst set of averages for her. Only a 2% average lead over Trump?!

The media kept making a big deal out of Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright saying that the United States had been a racist country.They never asked Palin to promise that she wasn't going to try to start wars in the Middle East based on her religion (a major problem in American society is religious Christian dispensationalists attempting to pass off the Middle eastern situation as "God doing it" one the one hand, while deliberately manipulating it on the other)."God and the Bible predicted the Middle Eastern wars between the exact nations that are fighting today" is the common claim.They don't seem to understand the difference between the (right-wing Christian) American supported British Empire drawing up borders and God "doing it".The people who draw the borders claim that we should all be shocked, like "wow , look at God's word coming true".Palin didn't have to answer any tough questions but Obama had to denounce his Pastor.

With near 0% interest rates......at first.I wonder if interest rates will rise.Eventually there is going to be lots of defaults around the world.If there are a lot of defaults, among nations, then perhaps the U.S. Dollar might be seen as the best currency to invest in.Our interest rates might stay low but the economic crash could still make the debt jack up. And Jobs to be lost. And housing debts will be unpayable to many.And if houses loose value, then there goes a lot of economic drivers (borrowing against a mortgage to finance purchases to fuel the economy).I hope these "quantitative easing" programs keep on working. That means the markets don't consider it inflationary and trust that the government-purchased bonds (from the QE created money) will be (eventually)sold back to investors (liquidating the QE created money out of existence).It still seems like the lower interest (and mortgage) rates today (due to QE purchases of Treasury and mortgage bonds) will be at the expense of (much)higher interest rates later when the government starts selling the trillions in bonds to private investors.Rates will have to be high to attract investors.And if we have an economic collapse along the way then current fiscal budgets (per year) will need to attract lots of bond purchases just to finance day to day operations.I would fear getting the job of President myself. The next Pres could get blamed for a lot that is only partially his/her fault.

Iowa
Clinton gets about 43%
Sanders gets 55% or 56%ThenNew Hampshire
Sanders gets about 60%
Clinton fails to get 40%

I think Bush II was a lot smarter than he pretended to be.Hillary drives people crazy because she attacks the crap out of her opponents (often quite dishonestly, such as her attacks on single-payer), then complains at the smallest attack on her. The public simply can't stand her. Her negatives are like 55%. Amazing that she is even a contender with negatives like that. But she is a ferocious attacker of her opponents.I think her b.s. about Bernie "going after Obama's healthcare, "he will end ObamaCare", ... "I can't believe I have to defend ObamaCare in a Democratic primary", is going to blow up in her face.Only about 20% of voters under 45 only support her in Iowa.Her strong opposition to single-payer hasn't been so obvious until now. Now voters will have a clear choice, with Bernie in the race (and Clinton loudly aiming at him, by tearing down on his single-payer plan, via distortion)

quote:

---

To be frank, I think the QE mechanism and the ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) of the Fed have essentially just created inflation in assets, but not yielded any tangible benefits from a fundamental standpoint.
....
The solution to the most recent Great Recession was to once again throw easy money at the problem. Now, we dropped interest rates to zero and started the QE mechanism. The result? Same as before. We now have another disconnect between fundamentals and asset prices.

​

What does this mean for the future? Hard to say and no one knows the end result. But my suspicion is that interest rates will stay low because we will likely be on the verge of another downturn and subsequent recession.

---

The only reason the rates are low is because the government has created about $3-4 trillion to purchase mortgage-backed securities and federal treasury debt.When the government needs to borrow money, it puts federal treasury IOUs on the market, and depending on the level of market interest (as in desire to purchase), then the government offers a certain interest rate. When the government makes purchases of its own debt, then there is no need to raise interest rates to snatch up additional bidders. The government was able to attract a certain amount of purchasers for bonds with super-low rates, but rates would have been higher if not for the quantitative easing.When it comes to the housing market, interest rates are very important. The government was buying mortgage-backed securities at low-interest rates and that enabled mortgages to be lower. The market would have demanded somewhat higher interest rates for the mortgage-backed bonds.But now we have to transition from the government purchasing $85 billion per month of debt, (first) incrementally down to no purchases.Then the big transition after that will be for the government to start selling the $3 trillion or so in bonds back to the market (that should have been purchasing it all along) WHICH WILL COMPETE FOR PURCHASERS against the newer mortgage-backed security and treasury bonds finding buyers. The rates will be driven up.Future housing mortgages and government deficits will come at a higher interest rate. Everybody knows this.Japan and Europe have QE programs of their own.They will collapse first. (If that happens then it might keep interest rates lower for Americans as the dollar will be seen as the least dangerous currency to invest in - Japan has a debt that is about 250% of GDP and with near 0% interest rates, so there is a real possibility of investors dumping the yen when QE is depressing rates artificially low for a country that might inflate its currency someday to pay the debt)

quote:

---

Notice that the "news" out of the last town hall meeting (where each candidate was on the stage independently and asked different questions, different attitude loaded questions) is that Bernie said "Will we raise taxes, yes we will ... " while ignoring that he said that you in effect get a tax rebate by not having to pay your private insurance premium for a net benefit for people earning under $250,000/yr.

---

ObamaCare charges a 2.5% individual income-tax (as the Supreme Court interpreted it) if a person doesn't pay at least 6% of their income on (very high deductible)insurance (or 12% of their income on lower-deductible insurance).Sanders charges a 2.2% tax for no-deductible insurance that a person can use anywhere (I am assuming that the "network" issues, typical of American healthcare, will be obsolete with single payer).Businesses have to pay a 6.7% tax per employee, which IMO isn't a good idea (I'd rather increase the marginal rates than to tax hiring), but I doubt it is more of a burden to businesses than their present health care spending.6.7% +2.2% = 8.9%.Medicare is 1.45% + 1.45% =2.9%(but seniors are a smaller population group than workers, and Medicare taxes only fund payments to doctors or Part A. Part B, payment to hospitals, is not taxed at all - the government simply pays it's share without a revenue source. Medicare part C might not even exist, does anybody know of it? Medicare Part D costs the government over $75 billion per year, at least, and has no revenue source. It is the Bush prescription drug plan of 2003)Medicare would be something like 6% (I think) if the program was fully funded by the revenues to match the government expenditures.(The $600 billion+ annual military budget - in 2016 - is not and has never had to be funded by a revenue stream. Imagine how many people would want to pay the payroll tax for that? It is $100 billion per year higher than the Cold War yearly average when adjusted for inflation. Only 1 single year -during the Reagan administration - saw a military budget higher, when adjusted for inflation, than our present budget. USA Today, in 2010, reported that federal income tax revenue brought in 1126 billion in 2009. It also showed that $846 billion was spent on "military and security" for that year. That's over 76% of the much-obsessed over - think "Joe the Plumber" - Federal Income Tax spent on military and security related programs)At least recent health care proposals have been alongside a funding source (2003 Medicare Part D BushCare aside). ObamaCare policy changes (with revenue adjustments!) have run a net-surplus so far.Why isn't Hillary bitching about the 2.5% tax penalty for not purchasing (ObamaCare) insurance? And much higher $$ percentages for purchasing the plans?2 reasons.1)Because she fought hard in 2008 for such a tax (Obama actually opposed it then).2) Because she would have to admit that Sanders would lower the CURRENT tax bill for most people (all middle class people).Hillary is a genuine liar and I hope we can move beyond her brand of politics.It is 2016.Enough of the crap.

quote:

---

it's like choosing between Syphilis and Gonorrhea.

​

....
he's incredibly hawkish. She only bloviated about Iraq to get in step with her party, but she voted in favor of it. She tried to use double-speak to get out from under it, but no one is buying it.

---

Um, whats up?EvC Forum: I actually mentioned "crazy Mike Pence" on Jan 3 and 1 month ago.

The exchange where Hillary "you want to have a cup of tea with Iran's leader" Clinton was agreeing with the approach of Mike Pence, but had to concede that the Pro-negotiation side won, and she must bend toward that position and conduct in her role as Secretary of State.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUGPxp4jamAHere is the quote from the close caption.

quote:

---

But president Obama won the election. He beat me in a primary in which he put forth a different approach

---

Hopefully, she is more open to negotiation now.This election is offering some really terrible choices (if Pence on the ticket means Trump will bend towards him) on foreign policy.On the GOP side.I hope Trump's war positions will be the dominant trait.On the Dem side.I hope Obama's desire to negotiate has rubbed off on Hillary.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Mike Pence’s loose grip on reality is almost as bad as Trump's | Grist"call me crazy"He is a global warming is a hoax type.Access to this page has been deniedlast link is Bloomberg NewsEdited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

1.From his congressional campaign website in 2000: Global warming is a myth. The global warming treaty is a disaster. There, I said itI know Monica Lewinsky seems like the most important issue in America but, call me crazy, I think the quiet expansion of the liberal environmentalist agenda by Al Gore and Clinton White House that will cost thousands of jobs could be more important. Say no to the global warming treaty. (via Buzzfeed)
Access to this page has been denied

---

Great golly, Mz. Molly.

quote:

---

Trump campaign guts GOP’s anti-Russia stance on Ukraine
....
The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes last week to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

​

Throughout the campaign, Trump has been dismissive of calls for supporting the Ukraine government as it fights an ongoing Russian-led intervention. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for the Russian-backed former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych for more than a decade
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...d8-13d06b37f256_story.html

---

This could very well become a campaign issue as time goes on.Interesting as voters haven't really engaged the issues much.Hillary is going after Trump (and Pence) on social issues, which wasn't what attracted Sanders such strong support in diverse states from Hawaii to Alaska.This could be a fundamentally important issue that draws lots of cross-over support.

How Hillary Clinton Benefits from Mike Pence as Trump VPHas to do with the agreement between crazy Mike and Hillary on war issues.