US Presidential Election 2016 official thread

Pretty surprised at that. I thought that he's still have a relatively okay chance simply by virtue of war of attrition. If he could have outlasted Kasich and Rubio he'd have started to perform much better.

But yeah, you'd expect the votes of Rubio and Kasich to pick up most. Bush (depending on state) has 10-15% to spread around.

I believe and I pray that his service to our country has not yet ended

I fear some of you are a tad biased. Complaining about a tiny margin in a large field is one thing but in a two horse race your always going to give the opposition an advantage because everybody rallies behind one 'not Hilary' candidate whether they like Sanders or not.

Are Obama and Reagan poor presidents because they only won by 4% ect.. they still won a two horse race and that's what matters.

Rubio said of Bush:-



I think that is code for Bush as Secretary of State in a Rubio White House.

Or a hint that Jeb could be VP if Rubio gets the nomination?

tbf people also aren't voting for Hillary because they fully support her. Its either name-recognition, or "she's gonna get stuff done" or "anyone but that old socialist" or "we need a woman as president"... but you're right to an extent, the Dems need someone who isn't as corrupt as Hillary but isn't as left as Bernie

Why?

It's easy, amongst all the attention that is given to the lower places, to lose sight of the fact that Trump is two for three and miles ahead right now. He is performing well amongst pretty much every conceivable subdivision of republican voters. It should be clear at this point that the man is incapable of saying anything that renders him less popular with them. Cruz scraped past him in Iowa, but couldn't beat him in SC, which is another deeply religious state which ought to be his for the taking. Rubio is nowhere close, and I question the assumption that Jeb!'s would-be supporters will move to him automatically. Voters' decisions do not perfectly conform to what one would expect in analysing the race from the outside. They are not necessarily thinking and categorising the candidates in the same terms as the commentariat.

Realistically I don't feel informed enough to stake actual money on any candidate, but if I had a free bet to squander I'd put it on Trump.

The members of the electoral college cannot vote for a VP from the same state as the candidate they vote for, for President.

In 2000 Dick Cheney had to switch his residence from Texas to Wyoming (but he had very strong links to Wyoming having been its congressman and had only moved to Texas with his Haliburton job) as Bush was resident in Texas.

I think there would be a lot of adverse reaction to Jeb switching his state of residence to say Texas or Maine from Florida in order to run as VP.

Trump is miles ahead yes, but in every vote his actual voter take is far less than what polls put him on. Personally I think he benefits from the divided field. Once that thins out as we are seeing now the majority of those votes will move to someone like Rubio. Why? Because the sort of person who would vote for Trump votes for him in the first instance, he's that sort of candidate. I doubt we'd see much movement from Bush to Trump.

Time will tell anyway.

Posted from TSR Mobile

But he is just like the New Deal Democrats of the 1930s, i.e moderate. Every single wealthy western developed country in the world has healthcare system that is considered communist in america. He's only majorly left wing if you let the mind rotting overtone window do your thinking for you.

The Senate can also appoint a VP, which would presumably be fine with Rubio if he made Prezzie and it was still Republican, as seems likely. It also doesn't matter if it isn't a close election, it's only a rule that the college voters can't vote for two candidates from their own state, it doesn't affect all of the electoral college.

Trump takes the lead after his winner takes all victory.

Those figures overlook the fact that Bush still has at least three pledged delegates from NH.

The delegates of dropped out candidates become more significant the later they drop out because the numbers are greater.

Does the candidate get a say in who those delegates get behind?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Does the candidate get a say in who those delegates get behind?

Interesting to note just 4% of republican spending has been directed against attacking Trump.

Posted from TSR Mobile

So only 4% of republican spending is pro Trump?