Talk politics.

I agree that the predictions of a beginning of the end of Trump's run are a bit premature.

Nice chart btw.

From:

ddstory.livejournal.com

So why don't Iowans want to make America great again, again?

From:

So why don't Iowans want to make America great again, again?

Apparently, because their evangelicalism exceeds their desire to "Make America ~~White~~ Great Again"

From:

oportet.livejournal.com

For the Republicans, I think it comes down to who drops out, and when. I think Trump would pick up a good bit from Carson - but I don't see why Carson would drop out anytime soon. Cruz and Rubio would split the rest, but the rest don't have much to offer. You'd think that Bush's followers and Super PACs would easily transfer over to Rubio, but Rubio has been their main target - so maybe not.

O'Malley is gone, so either Bernie or Hillary will pick up one vote in Maryland - shouldn't make much of a difference.

From:

ponitacupcake.livejournal.com

I wasn't surprised that Cruz won or Rubio did so well. I don't think either are as dangerous as Trump but they are plenty dangerous. All are jackasses. I don't think Trump is out of it and pundits seem to think that the establishment will get behind Rubio (of those who can't stand either Cruz or Trump.

I was surprised Sanders did well. It's an interesting election.

From:

liveonearth.livejournal.com

Trump vs Bernie would be a distillation of the central divide in American culture. That would be a surprise if it happened. So far no surprises.

From:

That would be beautiful to observe.

From:

Everybody has their fantasy matchups. November will probably look a lot different than today does (think 2008 elections). This will be true especially if Trump and/or Michael Bloomberg decide to make independent runs.

From:

Y U so serious.

From:

Ummmm, because stuff like this will determine the fate of my country for the next 4 years. I have children and grandchildren that will be affected by this.

From:

You must have realized by now that not presidents, the people behind the presidents are the ones who craft policies and determine the fate of your country. Some call it the political establishment. I call it the oligarchy. In either case, it's not the president him/herself that directs the country. Reference: GWB and his neocon surrounding; Obama and his liberal surrounding; etc.

But of course, you're free to keep believing in whatever utopia you've been taught to believe in.

From:

And, of course, you're free to believe whatever cynical dystopia you live in. This country has had peaks and valleys in the last couple decades, but has been able to come out of some pretty shitty situations and continue on. If you're resigned yourself to continue to plod along with no hope whatsoever, that's your choice.

From:

You call it cynical dystopia. Others who've got the insight (or at least willingness to have it) call it reality (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-transformation-of-ame_1_b_7945040.html).

You don't know me, you don't know a thing about the place I live in, and you don't know what my motivations or my level of hope is - so I suggest you cut the crappy psychoanalysis effort right there.

Question. Do you honestly believe that if Trump gets elected, he'd really build a big beautiful wall and make Mexico pay for it, ban all Muslims from entering the country, and make all problems of international diplomacy go away by just looking Putin in the eye? Do you believe that if Sanders gets elected, he'd establish some sort of Scandinavian socialism in America? Do you believe half the things these guys spout in front of the mics is what's actually going to happen? Get back to reality, pal. The president is just among many players in the equation, and in many respects not even the most significant player. The system is designed in a way that no matter who's going to be president, the country will keep moving in the direction it's already been moving, more or less. Democracy will keep getting slowly but gradually eroded, personal freedoms will keep getting undermined one tiny bit after another, and your foreign policy is definitely not going to make a dramatic turn. The only thing that matters somewhat is which party would have a president in the White House, and even that would only yield one set of nuance rather than the other - but the general direction will be maintained, no matter who you'll elect.

So yeah, the question remains. Why get so worked up about all this election drama?

Edited Date: 3/2/16 22:06 (UTC)

From:

Because an alarmingly huge chunk of the electorate have drunk the Kool-Aid, taken the bait, hook, line and sinker, and they've come to a point where they genuinely believe they're going to "change something" by, you know, casting this piece of paper in this box, sign here and here.

They misconstrue the recognition of the status quo as a loss of hope. A language that doesn't match the set of talking points that they've been spoon-fed over the years, feels completely alien to them, and one that they confuse for the paranoid blabbering of a conspiracy tinfoil schizophrenic.

It's pointless to even begin to reason with that sort of mentality.

From:

And people that think like you are the reason why we have such a low voter turnout. And they are the first ones to bitch about even though they have nothing to contribute.

From:

Yeah, because changing Obama over Hillary totally changed America, right?

Get off your high horse and spare me the platitudes.

From:

luvdovz.livejournal.com

And people that think like you are the reason that eloquent populists with inadequate governing skills tend to get into office time and time again.

From:

You call it cynical dystopia. Others who've got the insight (or at least willingness to have it) call it reality (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-transformation-of-ame_1_b_7945040.html).

Call it what you want despite HuffPo's opinion piece. There are opinions on both sides of the argument.

You don't know me, you don't know a thing about the place I live in, and you don't know what my motivations or my level of hope is - so I suggest you cut the crappy psychoanalysis effort right there.

I beg to differ. I have been in the forum for years and have come to know a lot about a lot of the people in here. I happen to know you have a really shitty opinion of the United States (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/2037271.html?thread=150572311#t150572311). That is a direct quote from you. That is not an ad hominem or whatever insipid catch phrase you want to use to avoid the issue.

Question. Do you honestly believe that if Trump gets elected, he'd really build a big beautiful wall and make Mexico pay for it, ban all Muslims from entering the country, and make all problems of international diplomacy go away by just looking Putin in the eye? Do you believe that if Sanders gets elected, he'd establish some sort of Scandinavian socialism in America? Do you believe half the things these guys spout in front of the mics is what's actually going to happen?

Anybody that really knows American politics knows that this an agenda and a direction that they are proposing. Anybody who believes that this is a laundry list of promises becomes disappointed at their own peril. The only people that try to hold them to it are the opposition. The reality is that the whole campaign is an enormous job interview that is asking the American people to hire them as President.

The president is just among many players in the equation, and in many respects not even the most significant player.

The President is an enormous player in the equation. He heads up the executive branch which selects his cabinet, who in turn executes the law of the land. He also is the front man for the government. Anybody that opposes the agenda he was elected on answers to the American people in the next election. There is an accountability to the people of the United States that can't be ignored.

The system is designed in a way that no matter who's going to be president, the country will keep moving in the direction it's already been moving, more or less.

Yes. We have continuity of administrations where one picks up the business of the prior administration. If we didn't do this, we would have constant chaos.

The system is designed in a way that no matter who's going to be president, the country will keep moving in the direction it's already been moving, more or less. Democracy will keep getting slowly but gradually eroded, personal freedoms will keep getting undermined one tiny bit after another, and your foreign policy is definitely not going to make a dramatic turn. The only thing that matters somewhat is which party would have a president in the White House, and even that would only yield one set of nuance rather than the other - but the general direction will be maintained, no matter who you'll elect.

Thanks for your laundry list of internet memes. Yes. We move forward without horrible disruptions in our place in the world. Thanks for understanding.

From:

I have a shitty opinion of the US society, so what? I'm being consistent here.

And you still don't know me, or where I'm coming from.

The president is one of the many players. Picking one candidate over the other will not change America's policies drastically. It'll only change nuances. Even the more radical or non-establishment candidates like Trump and Sanders will inevitably fall in line, once they're elected. That's how the system works. You ignore this fact at YOUR own peril. So thanks for trying, but you're not going to change my observations with a few worn-out tropes and a cheap shot at personal analysis.

From:

Wow, do you keep tabs on all people's comments here?

From:

mahnmut.livejournal.com

You guys regularly mess up whichever part of the world you feel like touching, and you've ended up with a hollow imitation of democracy, while never stopping to preach to others about it - is there a reason not to have a shitty opinion of the US?

From:

What difference would it make if, say, Bloomberg is elected president rather than Hillary Clinton? What would be the difference in policy between Trump and Cruz or Rubio? Which specific areas of domestic policy and foreign policy would drastically differ in these alternate cases?

But try being a tad more specific this time. I'm afraid general platitudes of the "you've lost all hope" sort are not going to cut it.

From:

ddstory.livejournal.com

Chirp. Chirp.

From:

abomvubuso.livejournal.com

Wasn't it you who were so vehemently opposed to offhand behind-the-back trolling of this sort?

Well, you're not giving a fine example.

From:

mikeyxw.livejournal.com

My thoughts on the result? A big sigh of relief. I suspected that Mr. Trump would do much better in the polls than the elections. Poll numbers are nice and all, but the folks at the DNC and RNC have spent decades figuring out the best way to turn support into election wins. Each state's primary is a slightly different beast, I can't imagine Mr. Trump's campaign is going to be as effective as either Mr. Rubio or Mr. Cruz. I'm betting that this story will be repeated, with Mr. Trump coming in with less than predicted in each state and the more professional politicians coming in above. This will probably be even more pronounced when folks start dropping out, the big question is who will pick up Mr. Carson's supporters. Okay, the bigger question is why Mr. Carson is still beating several candidates who don't seem to be insane, but I'm not sure I want to know the answer to that one.

Equally surprising is Mr. Sanders' showing. Mrs. Clinton is smart, experienced, and kind of reasonable, but it's been a while since we've had a technocrat as president. If she loses, this will be the second time that a relative unknown had displaced her. Maybe it's time for the Democrats to field a dozen candidates rather than an anointed candidate, an outsider, and some dude trying to run for VP.

From: