Donald Trump

[wigginhall]

Many people seriously dislike Hillary, for various reasons, partly that she has been around for so long, and involved in so much heavy duty stuff, but on the other hand, would you vote for the man who suggests that Cruz's father was next to Lee Oswald?   I would think that Trump has already lost the women's vote, and the Latino vote, also gays.   True, he has the vote of those who are against big gumment, but for big guns. 

[Hope]

Are minors allowed to run for president 

We could still have an independent candidate.  Back in 2004 and 2008 Ralph Nader stood as an independent and in 2008, there were 6 tickets who stood in enough states to potentially enable them to be elected to the White House.  Didn't Nader stand as an Independent/Green in 1996 and 2000?

[Hope]

Many people seriously dislike Hillary, for various reasons, partly that she has been around for so long, and involved in so much heavy duty stuff, but on the other hand, would you vote for the man who suggests that Cruz's father was next to Lee Oswald?   I would think that Trump has already lost the women's vote, and the Latino vote, also gays.   True, he has the vote of those who are against big gumment, but for big guns.

On this morning's BBC Breakfast, a Republicans Overseas-UK spokesperson suggested that Trump had only stood as the protest candidate and only expected to last for 3 or 4 weeks.  He is still potentially the protest candidate, especially as working class white voters seem to have decided that they don't like Hilary.  Mind you, if she and Bernie are still as close in electoral college numbers as they seem to be at present come the summer, these disgruntled white Democrats may go to him rather than to Trump.

[wigginhall]

We now take you live to GOP headquarters:

https://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/bosch-hell.jpg

(Thanks to 914 for this). 

[L.A.]

On this morning's BBC Breakfast, a Republicans Overseas-UK spokesperson suggested that Trump had only stood as the protest candidate and only expected to last for 3 or 4 weeks.  He is still potentially the protest candidate, especially as working class white voters seem to have decided that they don't like Hilary.  Mind you, if she and Bernie are still as close in electoral college numbers as they seem to be at present come the summer, these disgruntled white Democrats may go to him rather than to Trump.

But the simple equation seems to be Clinton can beat Trump, Sanders can't.

But these things aren't always decided by logic or common sense as the Labour Party know only too well.

[Nearly Sane]

But the simple equation seems to be Clinton can beat Trump, Sanders can't.

But these things aren't always decided by logic or common sense as the Labour Party know only too well.

All we have on the 'equation' is polling which has consistently indicated that Sanders would do better against Trump than Hillary.

[SqueakyVoice]

All we have on the 'equation' is polling which has consistently indicated that Sanders would do better against Trump than Hillary.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html (there are links to various other options, including Trump v Clinton)

The possible counter to that polling evidence is that Bernie may mean that there's more possibility for an independent middle ground candidate to turn it into a three way fight, which would be harder to predict.

A Hillary candidacy would be seen as closer to the middle ground, which would leave less room for a third party and she'd win a two horse race much more easily than Bernie would win a three horse one.

[L.A.]

All we have on the 'equation' is polling which has consistently indicated that Sanders would do better against Trump than Hillary.

I've never seen that poll, and every American I have ever met equates 'Socialist' with 'Commie' - so I can't see Sanders winning against ANY Republican candidate - they would tear him to shreds (not that I have anything against him, he seems quite a sensible type except that he has used the 'S' word')

[floo]

I've never seen that poll, and every American I have ever met equates 'Socialist' with 'Commie' - so I can't see Sanders winning against ANY Republican candidate - they would tear him to shreds (not that I have anything against him, he seems quite a sensible type except that he has used the 'S' word')

The Americans are SO gullible where religion and politics are concerned, imo.

[Brownie]

I've never seen that poll, and every American I have ever met equates 'Socialist' with 'Commie' - so I can't see Sanders winning against ANY Republican candidate - they would tear him to shreds (not that I have anything against him, he seems quite a sensible type except that he has used the 'S' word')

That is so true LA, I can remember an American talking about our ''Communist government'' when Tony Blair was elected  .  Hilarious.

Floo, yes it does seem as though those over the pond are gullible but we don't have much room to talk when you think about the people who slavishly follow extreme right organisations like the BNP, EDL etc, even UKIP.  We tend to be cynical about religion though and politicians don't generally talk about their beliefs, if they have any.  Quite right too.

[Hope]

The Americans are SO gullible where religion and politics are concerned, imo.

No more so than us Brits, Floo.  Look at the last 3 or 4 governments we've had in Westminster and - for Wales - the fact that the Labour Party is increasingly reviled by Labour supporters yet still seems to win enough seats to rule alone or in coalition.

[floo]

No more so than us Brits, Floo.  Look at the last 3 or 4 governments we've had in Westminster and - for Wales - the fact that the Labour Party is increasingly reviled by Labour supporters yet still seems to win enough seats to rule alone or in coalition.

Well at least UKIP hasn't done too well, lets hope that lasts.

[Nearly Sane]

I've never seen that poll, and every American I have ever met equates 'Socialist' with 'Commie' - so I can't see Sanders winning against ANY Republican candidate - they would tear him to shreds (not that I have anything against him, he seems quite a sensible type except that he has used the 'S' word')

I said polling - not talking about one poll but mutiple polls

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bernie-sanders-vs-donald-trump-polls-better-than-hillary-clinton-independent-vote-democratic-nomination-how/

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

[Hope]

Well at least UKIP hasn't done too well, lets hope that lasts.

It has never had Welsh Assembly/Government candidates before, Floo, so not sure about your "hasn't done too well" comment.

[Nearly Sane]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html (there are links to various other options, including Trump v Clinton)

The possible counter to that polling evidence is that Bernie may mean that there's more possibility for an independent middle ground candidate to turn it into a three way fight, which would be harder to predict.

A Hillary candidacy would be seen as closer to the middle ground, which would leave less room for a third party and she'd win a two horse race much more easily than Bernie would win a three horse one.

Yes, I suspect that Sanders v Trump might tempt Bloomberg into the ring.


The worry is that Hillary has struggled against Sanders, and now the Donald can attack her while she is still fighting Sanders.

[floo]

It has never had Welsh Assembly/Government candidates before, Floo, so not sure about your "hasn't done too well" comment.

I was talking generally, as far as getting bums on seats is concerned, we shall see the results soon enough.

[L.A.]

I said polling - not talking about one poll but mutiple polls

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bernie-sanders-vs-donald-trump-polls-better-than-hillary-clinton-independent-vote-democratic-nomination-how/

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders

I must admit NS, that does surprise me, but then opinion polls can be way-off the mark as that geeky bloke who used to run the Labour party will tell you.

Anyway, imagine the scenario, Sanders v Trump - the Republicans would have a field-day. They would throw billions into an advertising campaign to destroy 'Comrade' Sanders, comparing him to every communist leader from Stalin to Kim Jong-un and I suspect that would get Trump into the White house.

[Shaker]

I must admit NS, that does surprise me, but then opinion polls can be way-off the mark as that geeky bloke who used to run the Labour party will tell you.

Neil Kinnock?

[floo]

Neil Kinnock?

Whatever else I might have called Kinnock, I wouldn't have called him a geek.

[L.A.]

Neil Kinnock?

Opinion polls quite often don't go well for Labour.

[Shaker]

Whatever else I might have called Kinnock, I wouldn't have called him a geek.

Me either, but I didn't get L.A.'s reference to somebody who used to run the Labour Party. I suppose the late John Smith might be considered a bit geeky by some? 

[Jack Knave]

Well at least UKIP hasn't done too well, lets hope that lasts.

Plenty of time yet for them to grow and triumph in 2020.

[Jack Knave]

Yes, I suspect that Sanders v Trump might tempt Bloomberg into the ring.


The worry is that Hillary has struggled against Sanders, and now the Donald can attack her while she is still fighting Sanders.

Are people suggesting that Sanders should go as an independent, if he could get the money to back him? I know he is still grappling with Hillary but he is unlikely to win. If he did run as an independent that would really upset the apple cart as he could get a substantial portion of the votes in a three-way.

I reckon Trump will play dirty with Hillary and reveal some skeletons from her cupboard. Otherwise he can't win.

[Nearly Sane]

Are people suggesting that Sanders should go as an independent, if he could get the money to back him? I know he is still grappling with Hillary but he is unlikely to win. If he did run as an independent that would really upset the apple cart as he could get a substantial portion of the votes in a three-way.

I reckon Trump will play dirty with Hillary and reveal some skeletons from her cupboard. Otherwise he can't win.

I wouldn't be surprised if people were to but this was just about the idea that should Sanders have been the Democrat candidate vs Trump then a third party candidate would do damage to Sanders. To be fair if it was Bloomberg it would damage Trump as well.

[L.A.]

Me either, but I didn't get L.A.'s reference to somebody who used to run the Labour Party. I suppose the late John Smith might be considered a bit geeky by some? 

Can't blame the pollsters for that miscalculation - that was definitely 'The Hand of God'