2016 Presidential election campaign

From SLATE:

The essential story of the religious right is that wholesome small-town values are under attack from immoral big-city globalists. That’s the narrative Cruz invoked last night, and it surely still has currency among the Republican electorate. Trump, however, speaks to people who know that American small towns aren’t so wholesome anymore—that they are, in fact, places of widespread social breakdown and desperation. He describes a country that’s “going to hell,” with decaying infrastructure, massive unemployment, and a growing heroin problem.

The Washington Post recently ran a piece headlined “These Are The Towns That Love Donald Trump.” It notes that Trump often holds his rallies in places that are struggling, “filled with dissatisfied blue-collar Democrats and Republicans who feel as if they haven’t had a voice.” Trump speaks to their despair and promises to use his New York deal-making magic to turn them from losers into winners. He’s not telling people that their towns are better than New York, because they know that they’re not. Rather than channeling their ire towards smirking urban elitists, he directs it outward, toward Muslims and immigrants. It’s a new sort of culture war, one for people who no longer believe that their little communities are models for everyone else.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/01/trump_bests_cruz_...

US Presidential Elections: An Expensive Charade

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/329235-us-presidential-election-charade/

"So why do it to yourself? Why waste any more of your life falling for this nonsense?"

Political Responsibility in the Nuclear Age: An Open Letter To the American People  -  by Richard Falk, David Kreiger - Robert Laney

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/22/political-responsibility-in-the-n...

"...We are appalled that none of the candidates running for the highest office in the land has yet put forward any plan or strategy to end current threats of nuclear annihilation, none has challenged the planned expenditure of $1 Trillion to modernize the US nuclear arsenal, and none has made a point of the US being in breach of its nuclear disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In the presidential debates, it has been a non-issue, which scandalizes the candidates for not raising the issue in their many public speeches and the media for not challenging them for failing to do so.

As a society, we are out of touch with the most frightening, yet after decades still dangerously mishandled, challenge to the future of humanity..."

josh wrote:

Why it will be difficult for Sanders to win the nomination.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/9179

I think it can be made a lot simpler than that. The American citizen has been propagandized to hate Russia by the demonization of Putin. That makes them mostly pro-war and the proof of that is that no candidate ever concentrates on an antiwar campaign. It's just not popular.

The anti-establishment vote is huge, as demonstrated by Trump's and Sanders's popularity but the antiwar vote is almost non-existent. Sanders can't waffle on the foreign policy issue because that's half his substance at least.

NDPP wrote:

MOA: My First Take on the Presidential Election

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/01/my-first-take-on-the-presidential-e...

"Say what you will about Donald Trump but he knows how to market himself. Staging a feud with Fox News and abstaining from tonight's Republican candidates debate gives him more media coverage than taking part.

He is already the front-runner of the Republican candidates. More debating could only endanger that position. Staying away and making a fuss about it gives him a bigger lead."

Sanders is hard to see as president. His domestic policies are somewhat comparable to middle-of-the-road European social-democrats. His foreign policy isn't clear. While not an interventionist he supports the colonists in Palestine.

My gut instinct says it will be Sanders against Trump with a voter turnout advantage for Sanders. What is your take?"

No wonder so many dippers like Bernie - sounds much like an NDP candidate

My take is that it will be Clinton against Rubio and Rubio will take it. 

Rubio because he has what is by far the most important quality for a US presidential candidate. You're expecting to hear something earth shattering and profound? You think that monty knows something that nobody else knows.

Nope, none of that. 

Rubio is pretty and easy to look at. 

Same as how Trudeau got his winning margin. And not to take anything away from Trudeau for being born with it.

[IMG]http://i67.tinypic.com/34e7u50.png[/IMG]

If this had been a winner take all model still Clinton's MSM supporters would be talking about her great win. As it is her and Bernie come out of Iowa in a virtual tie for electoral college votes. I do think it will energize the base and that is only going to help Sanders.

Quote:

Beginning with the 2012 Presidential election, Iowa switched from the old winner-take-all allocation to proportional allocation. The change was made to prolong the race, giving lesser known candidates a chance and making it harder for a frontrunner to secure the majority early. It was also hoped that this change in the election system would energize the base of the party.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

I would love to see Neil deGrasse Tyson as the US president.