Why do they always "suspend" rather than end their campaigns? Is that so they can hold onto the money in the coffers and (mis)use it elsewhere?
A lot of the polls running this scenario are Sanders 36, Trump 35, Bloomberg 29. You have to remember that Sanders will get all the liberals in this scenario plus some of the Democrats who are not strictly liberal whereas Trump and Bloomberg will split the rest. Bill Clinton won with 42% of the vote in 1992 because H.Ross Perot took a lot of voters from Bush and only a few from Clinton. I think a 3 way race might well get thrown into the House of Representatives unless Bloomberg chose to release the delegates that were not legally bound to vote for him. In that case we might well see President Michael Bloomberg instead of the two leading vote getters. This would depend on how Bloomberg had campaigned whether the various Conservative House delegations viewed him as the lesser of two evils compared to Trump. The only election ever decided in the House of Representatives was in 1825 and the House chose John Quincy Adams who was the second leading vote getter over Andrew Jackson, who was seen as a loud controversial populist likely to upset the applecart. It's easy to see Trump being unable to pull together enough state delegations to vote for him and Bloomberg getting enough GOP controlled state delegations plus some Democratic controlled state delegations.
First of all I am far from convinced that Trump will be the GOP nominee. Odds even at this point are less than 50% for sure. So there's that. I would agree if he is, though, that the GOP will not fight that hard for him, but they will be more likely to fight against Sanders than Clinton in an election v. Trump. I have heard some conservative GOPers in particular say that very thing and I think they mean it. But as for Sanders, I don't think his numbers add up at all. I have not said so here before, but to be clear I think he's selling fairy tales. He's almost all critique, which to be clear is important to have, and a lot of his criticisms and observations I agree with. Income inequality IS a huge problem. It's where to go from his observations that the problems begin and soon pile up like a train wreck. For example, is it a problem that we have such large financial institutions dominating that industry? It surely is, not the least for their political power. But what to do about it, given the situation? After all Dodd Frank DOES address a lot of the problems that gave rise to the financial crisis. The capitalization requirements are a strong protection against that scenario occurring again. And then there's the irony that part of the reason they are so big is because the government in effect asked them to be, as in their taking over such failed institutions as Merrill Lynch, Lehman's entrails and the like. But the main concern would be if Sanders was elected and set out to "break up" the big banks, there would be a huge recession, since they would largely stop lending given the uncertainty to their futures. Another is the fantastical notion that there would be general acceptance by voters who are happy with their current health plans to change over to Medicare. It doesn't matter whether Sanders thinks those people should be happier doing so. This is America and people do not like being told by the government what is good for them. A lot of the problems facing working class voters are beyond the reach of Sanders and Trump. They involve overall drops in productivity increase rates, globalization and foreign competition, and a general recognition that there is no guarantee that the rate of growth we saw in the period of 1940 to the early seventies is repeatable. I also think his tax plans will not be accepted by the majority of Americans, again even if he thinks they should be. Clinton is right about anger. It is understandable, but it is not a plan. Sanders may have some plans, to be fair. But I don't think they are workable, and that's even after you have overcome the insurmountable problem of a recalcitrant GOP dominated Congress. It's a fairy tale.
I'm not sure which Republicans would vote for Bloomberg. It seems more likely he'd pull more voters from Sanders than Trump. Also, here is some recent polling: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ow_does_bloomberg_impact_a_clinton_trump_race The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that the Republican front-runner would win a hypothetical three-way matchup with Bloomberg and the leading Democratic contender: Trump earns 36% support to Clinton’s 30% and Bloomberg’s eight percent (8%). But a sizable 20% prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. ...... Moderates and liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to hold a favorable opinion of Bloomberg. In a three-way race, he earns 14% support from self-described moderates, nine percent (9%) from liberals and just four percent (4%) of the conservative vote.
Serious question here in regards to Sanders or any of people who agree with free college. What happens to all of those who have 100s of thousands of dollars of debt? They're just Shit out of luck because they were born 5 years after someone who is entering college now? Why would a college graduate who is in serious debt vote to give another college student free education? Who knows if that student is going into the same degree? More competition for you to get a job. More people with your degree. Your degree is then watered down and means less.
can someone please rename the GOP and Democratic threads to something more appropriate than "First Debate"? lol
Because that person is going to spend most of their 20's and early 30's paying off that debt? What happens to their kids when the money they should have been saving for the kids education is what they use to pay off their own? This hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for college is a fairly new phenomena. Most kids didn't have this a generation ago because their parents paid for college. Then the middle class declined and parents had to pick between a mortgage and an education for their kids and so the kids took out heavy loans just to do what their parents had mostly gotten for free. How do you think this works moving forward? Kids just stop going to college because it becomes obvious they will be in debt until they're 35 and their ability to start a family, get a mortgage, all that good stuff we hold dear in the American Dream will be put on hold? What jobs will give them a better life without that college education? It's a trap for the bottom 80% of the country right now and it's only just closed it's jaws on them in the last generation. That's why they'll vote for Sanders. To give their kids a chance to have a life and to give themselves some chance of clawing out from under that mountain of debt.
If kids stop going to college, colleges will be forced to lower their prices or go out of business. A perfect big government snafu would be to cause prices to skyrocket by guaranteeing student loans then "fix" the problem by raising taxes to make college "free". I have an idea - how about the government gets the fuck out of the way and lets the free market work?
Colleges should be free and government should subsidize it. In no other country, colleges are as expensive as in USA. Top 10 colleges in USA generate more money than World's 15th economy. USA colleges are not educational institutions. They are corporations and average people pay the price. Government shouldn't guarantee loans. Government should regulate all colleges and make them educational institutions rather than corporations.
Well yea, people like Bloomberg and Hillary want to take away my God given right to own a firearm. Bloomberg is a typical arrogant big city northeastern liberal who thinks that his way is the only way. Trump is the same, he's a northeastern big city liberal and he will govern like one.
There is regulation via funding but here we still value the free enterprise system enough to want the government at arms length.
