US Presidential Election 2016 official thread

Given that Cruz's wife works for them, can you imagine the party they'll be having at Goldman Sachs HQ if it's a Cruz versus Clinton election? Urgh.....

It really does make one wonder if the establishment aren't going to 'insert' a more mainstream candidate into the proceedings before the big state votes. Bloomberg perhaps.

2. Bill's actions were brought on after Wall St lobbying and private donations. The repeal of that legislation gave free rein to people to commit fraud as a business model. Selling dodgy mortgages with one hand, then betting on them to fail with the other. The result was the most horrendous financial crash in 80 years and it came about because politicians removed the safeguards.George W Bush and Obama had the chance to put them back into place, neither did, and both have taken Wall St donations.

It's interesting to read about how Clinton took those decisions. His impulses were all free market anyway, hence his commitment to policies like NAFTA and his Third-Wayism always contained a lot more market liberalism than it did real commitment to social democratic values. (He transmitted that to Blair and Brown by a process of mental induction and possibly the use of electrodes. )

There was a big discrepancy between his commitments to the working class (although they avoid using that term) and what his liberal-tax base government could do. One of the things to paper the cracks and keep the poorer (and especially urban, poor and black) vote on board was the rapid promotion of superficially cheap loans for house buying. Repackaging these into bonds and marking them triple-A was the ultimate way of recycling all that rubbish, but the original impetus came from the need to sustain a myth of economic growth for the US lower classes, whilst the reality was (and continues to be) stagnant or declining real incomes.

In effect, Clintonism was a sort of clown masquerade using funny money and tricks to keep some mildly 'cooler' politicians in office in DC who culturally loathed Republicans but had little to offer by way of genuine change.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2016/politics/election-candidate-matchmaker/

Have you guys taken this? Everyone I know seems to have gotten Hilary Clinton, a few got Martin O'Malley, there was a Jeb Bush in there as well

I got the 3 Democrats with Hillary top and Bernie second. Not sure how, based on my answers.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2016/politics/election-candidate-matchmaker/

Have you guys taken this? Everyone I know seems to have gotten Hilary Clinton, a few got Martin O'Malley, there was a Jeb Bush in there as well

Surprised i got Cruz though.

Not sure how, based on my answers.

1. Christie
2. O'Malley
3. Sanders

1. Sanders: 74%
2. Trump: 71%
3. Cruz: 71%

It really does make one wonder if the establishment aren't going to 'insert' a more mainstream candidate into the proceedings before the big state votes. Bloomberg perhaps.

It really does make one wonder if the establishment aren't going to 'insert' a more mainstream candidate into the proceedings before the big state votes. Bloomberg perhaps.

The primaries are run by the state governments on behalf of the parties. Republican filing dates are usually considerably earlier than Democrat ones. It would be impossible now to add Bloomberg to most state primaries and the involvement of state governments make changing the rules much harder.

That means Bloomberg's only chance of running (or being co-opted following an independent campaign) as a Republican would be following a brokered convention.

I thought states have different rules and they also vary by party? Maybe it's too late though as you say, apart from at the convention.

It's interesting on the main topic to look at how endorsements are going, that's been one of the big predictors in past primaries. Rubio and Bush currently lead the pack for those on the Rep side.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

I thought states have different rules and they also vary by party? Maybe it's too late though as you say, apart from at the convention.

I am unsure about where he stands on foreign policy.

There is something about American political speak I have never understood and it's that 'middle class' refers to the baseline voter whereas here it's 'working class'. Is that because they don't think it's worth acknowledging them or because they don't think a blue collar class exists?.