Rubio won't drop out yet.

Agreed. Rubio still has a chance, in theory. But if he wants to get somewhere, he needs to claw his way upwards while he still can.

Edited 2/10/2016 04:21:22

Bernie is very very *very* unlikely to win...

No Jofferey, he has a good shot to win.

Because, he's the only candidate that sells hope. He's the only one who has been consistent with his own ideas for more then 40 years. He has raised more money then hillary on january.

All of this give him a good chance to win the dem domination. For the national one, if Trump or Cruz win the nomination, he will get the chair at DC.

Because, he's the only candidate that sells hope.

But in 8 years people will find out he was selling false gold, mostly like Obama. Hope and Change don't exist in Washington DC. I thought people would learn that by now.

I don't agree obama was a bad president. In 2015 he finally started to implement some of the progressive agenda he sold in 2008. His aproval rate is now raising. Too bad he hasn't started since it's first day in office, he could have done more.

As for Sanders, he won't be a passive president, be sure of it. He'll use and abuse of pres. decrees if needed.

LOL

If you actually believe that bull shit, TeamGuns, your naïve. Bernie doesn't have a better record than any other candidate.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/27/bernie-sanders-record-in-congress-shows-little-soc/?page=all

If people actually believe that Bernie Sanders can change anything, well, they should remember the old Winston Churchill quote:

The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute talk with the average voter.

@TeamGuns, exactly what I'm worried about... eight more years of economic failure... under idiot democrats elected by campaigning on useless concepts like pro-choice/homosexuality/free stuff instead of actually platforms like economics/experience/reform.

decrees if needed

So you're voting for a king?

progressive agenda he sold in 2008.

You're right. He sold you a Utopian agenda. And just like the people who buy from QVC, the American people bought it. It turns out the product breaks after 1 year of wear and tear. Obama is a politician. Sanders is a politician. Its the same old same old my friend.

Edited 2/10/2016 04:55:34

@King Jofferey

The article you shared just states just say that bernie tried to change things, it's a better record then many. Btw, I was refering to it's ideas, not his records. Plus washingtontimes is pro-hillary, I don't believe they are imparcial on this issue.

Your quote of churchill is just an anti-democracy one, it doesn't say anything against socialists/liberals. You should have searched it, he has plenty of them. The same quote applies to Trump and Cruz followers.

As for economy, Obama didn't do a so bad job, your gdp is growing and the unemployement is at very low rates, you're doing better then most countries, if it was a republican president, you would be cheering for his success.

As for your useless concepts, I'd say the same thing about anti-gay/pro-life/anti-immigration stuff from republicans, it's just bullshit to get elected, not one of them will do a damm thing about it, as Obama didn't.

As experience, most of the candidates have a huge one, Bernie and Hillary have decades of political life.

For the economics plan, I've read a few reports from economists saying Bernie's plans will work, if he manages to pass it of course. And I've read some saying the US would collapse, which is non-sense in my opinion, but I guess the answer to this question is hard to tell. Everyone will have it's own opinion in economics.

Sanders is giving people hope, it is the same idea that FDR, LBJ, JFK, and Obama ran on among others. I think that most of the right misses this, practically every left-liberal that got elected in the history of the US ran on this sort of situation in a global crisis. This means that Sanders A) has a shot, and B) the support of the working class. Hope is what got FDR elected to his first two terms.

Second, the economics debate comes down to what theory you support, All left economists, and even a few center-right will say that Sander's plan won't kill the economy, Keynesian will probably say it will boost it, while the right will say that it will be killed by it.

Third, @King Jeffery the republican party actually wants the election to be about those issues, as the US is divided on them about 50-50. If it turns economic or social reform, the Democrats win in a land side(At least 5%). Here's a gallup poll on the matter, read through it before responding, please and thank you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/188312/2016-state-union-considering-public-opinion.aspx?g_source=&g_medium=&g_campaign=tiles

Edited 2/10/2016 05:26:06

He'll use and abuse of pres. decrees if needed.

Because that's what we need, more of the President over-reaching their Constitutional authority and gathering more power in the Executive branch.

I don't care which side of the political aisle you identify with, presidential power has restrictions for a reason. I bet the same people who say it's okay for President Obama to use executive orders on immigration and gun control would throw a riot if a Republican president used executive orders to advance a conservative cause.

TL;DR: The president needs to have their power restricted, because both sides like turning a blind eye when power abuse is in their favor.

B) the support of the working class.

Blue-collar voters are also Trump's core demographic, so much that unions are having issues with getting their own members to vote against him.

^Valid point, but I'm thinking that if it comes down to Cruz v Sanders or Rubio v Sanders, that Sanders wins that voting group, and if Trump v Sanders, it goes towards sanders at a ratio of 55-45 ish.

so the thing is: it's not going to be v Sanders. It's going to be [GOP candidate] v Clinton. And probably not Trump, either. We're looking at Cruz/Rubio v Clinton.

Edited 2/10/2016 06:03:27

Why couldn't Sanders be the democratic candidate? Clinton barely won by less than a 1% won in Iowa, she got absouletely destroyed in NH by well over 20%.

She leads nationally by about 15%, Sanders is gonna need a stunner in Nevada, and possibly South Carolina, as well as an overall victory on Super Tuesday to have a strong enough momentum to guarantee a win, and the odds of that happening are low. He has a shot, but it's not very strong atm.

Nevada or South Carolina probably decides this race. If sanders wins one, the race will actually be meaningful until the Nomination. Sanders wins both(Highly unlikely), Sanders may become the front-runner. Sanders loses both, and we probably have a slog fest until the Nomination

I am a Sanders supporter btw, but also a semi-realist.

Well didn't read all the previous pages, but the NH primaries happened as they were expected to, though Trump and Sanders won by larger margins than I expected.

That being said, I still expect Clinton to be Democratic Nominee, Republican is less certain, Trump is too unpredictable, he has a good chance of winning the Nominee but a very low chance the GE. Better GE chances go to more moderate Republican candidates like Rubio if nominated, both Sanders and Clinton are very vulnerable to attacks.

GE polls at this point are useless.

Edited 2/10/2016 12:32:07

Trump is vowing to be “The Greatest Jobs President God Ever Created’”.

Go Trump! You are the Chosen One! Allahu Akbar!

Trump will win the election and make America great again! Greater than ever before!

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!