Elections 2016 New Hampshire Primary Discussion

[speakhandsforme]

Dirty, secret confession to make - I want Trump to stay in the race longer. I think he's too thin-skinned to be President, but he is single handedly making this the most entertaining Presidential cycle we'll see in our lifetimes.

Single handedly?

You don't think the Sanders surge against the Hillary juggernaut is pretty interesting?

I'd say he's what's keeping the Republican race interesting, since a Cruz/Rubio/Bush race would be a snooze fest.

The dream outcome would be a Trump/Sanders general. Now that would be quality stuff.

 

[Lead]

1% reporting.

Cruz kasich trump tied at 24.3%

Sanders 61% hilarity 32%

That's my point, only the establishment of both parties don't think it's a good idea. We should only have social programs that are essential and we can pay for.

And I'd be royally pissed if the next President doesn't have a balanced budget as a priority within five years. Getting it done immediatley isn't realistic, but grandually cutting the deficit over a number of years is.

But to the Washington Establishment, it's an impossibility, because in their collective minds, they've made it an impossibility.

That's less than 1%. To be more accurate, it's about 34 votes....

 

[in the]

Single handedly?

You don't think the Sanders surge against the Hillary juggernaut is pretty interesting?

I'd say he's what's keeping the Republican race interesting, since a Cruz/Rubio/Bush race would be a snooze fest.

The dream outcome would be a Trump/Sanders general. Now that would be quality stuff.

Sanders is making things moderately interesting, but he's going to have to make up some ground. Really, the two most interesting things that have happened with Sanders is him possibly being screwed out of Iowa and watching older feminists roast young women who don't adhere to their collective group think. Those aren't things he has done personally, unlike Trump. Trump is generating the interest; Bernie isn't.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yet, liberals own the biggest deficits ever, under super majorities of the congress, and senate, with the most liberal President ever.

Fiscally responsible liberals is an oxymoron.

First, that's factually not even true. Second, we saw more deficit reduction in Obama's first term than ever. The ACA was probably the biggest deficit-reducing piece of legislation ever. You're not even responding to the point I've been making, which is that if your goal is lower taxes and less spending, you have zero incentive to want lower deficits, while if your goal is to maintain effective gov't programs, you need to have them funded.

Not really? Point out to me when the national debt has gone down, and not just up.

It went down after the Civil War until WWI, then it went down after WWI until the Depression. It went down after WWII steadily until Reagan. It went down after Reagan until Bush.

It's laughable that the entirety of all tuition of all public colleges can be paid with a tax on Wallstreet.

It's like saying the national debt would be paid off with an additional 1% sales tax.

Saying that you can raise $47B for taxes on speculation is "like saying" that you can buy back $19T in bonds on the secondary market with a 1% sales tax? Really? I guess the form of the statements is similar, but the magnitude and plausibility are very different, no?

I could link to a documentary about The Fed, but you wouldn't watch it, and you don't like being proved wrong.

Huh? If you actually have a point that you think is convincing, maybe try making it?

Sanders is making things moderately interesting, but he's going to have to make up some ground. Really, the two most interesting things that have happened with Sanders is him possibly being screwed out of Iowa and watching older feminists roast young women who don't adhere to their collective group think. Those aren't things he has done personally, unlike Trump. Trump is generating the interest; Bernie isn't.

Sanders' incredibly obnoxious army of trolls is certainly making things "interesting" in a way.

 

[NelmarksGhost]

The dream outcome would be a Trump/Sanders general. Now that would be quality stuff.

Bloomberg will jump into the race if it's Trump/Sanders.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Sanders is making things moderately interesting, but he's going to have to make up some ground. Really, the two most interesting things that have happened with Sanders is him possibly being screwed out of Iowa and watching older feminists roast young women who don't adhere to their collective group think. Those aren't things he has done personally, unlike Trump. Trump is generating the interest; Bernie isn't.

Idk, I think a grassroots movement comprised of mostly a new generation of voters is pretty damn interesting. Even being competitive with Hillary given the YUGE disparity in party endorsements is crazy upsetting in the current party landscape. Maybe it's just because it feels medicinal to me as a person feeling far too politically jaded for my age.

Also, can someone explain to me how Clinton already has 6 delegates attributed to her in New Hampshire despite having only a third of the early votes? I clearly don't understand how primaries work.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

First, that's factually not even true.

Go ahead. What conservative President had bigger deficits than Obama?

Second, we saw more deficit reduction in Obama's first term than ever.

Yes, after he rose the deficits to absurd amounts, we should give him credit for when Republicans in the congress brought it down to less absurd amounts.

The ACA was probably the biggest deficit-reducing piece of legislation ever. You're not even responding to the point I've been making, which is that if your goal is lower taxes and less spending, you have zero incentive to want lower deficits, while if your goal is to maintain effective gov't programs, you need to have them funded.

The fact that you believe this, or expect us to believe it, is astounding.

It went down after the Civil War until WWI, then it went down after WWI until the Depression. It went down after WWII steadily until Reagan. It went down after Reagan until Bush.

Let's keep this within the timeline of the last 70 years.

As you can see, it went down by a number of a few hundred million near the end of Clinton's term, then went to the same level by the end of Clinton's term.

With the exception of that one anomaly, it's never gone down in 70 years.

Saying that you can raise $47B for taxes on speculation is "like saying" that you can buy back $19T in bonds on the secondary market with a 1% sales tax? Really? I guess the form of the statements is similar, but the magnitude and plausibility are very different, no?

There's nothing plausible about it. It's an impossibility without serious economic consequences, like investors taking their money to foreign stock markets.

Huh? If you actually have a point that you think is convincing, maybe try making it?

There's no point I could make that you'd believe. No short youtube documentary that you'd watch. So, why bother.

 

[uncommon]

Arithmetic scaling over long periods of time bothers me, use a log scale

 

[in the]

Idk, I think a grassroots movement comprised of mostly a new generation of voters is pretty damn interesting. Even being competitive with Hillary given the YUGE disparity in party endorsements is crazy upsetting in the current party landscape. Maybe it's just because it feels medicinal to me as a person feeling far too politically jaded for my age.

Also, can someone explain to me how Clinton already has 6 delegates attributed to her in New Hampshire despite having only a third of the early votes? I clearly don't understand how primaries work.

I already saw a young, grassroots movement back in 2008 and 2012, and Ron Paul went nowhere. I really hope Sanders knocks off Clinton. Unlike her, I actually think he's a man of principle and I really like some of his stances (greater regulation on Wall Street, for example). But young people are notoriously flaky when it comes to voting. Even if they somehow vote him as the Democratic candidate, they won't come out in droves to support him come general election time.

I've been jaded since 2003, when there were no weapons of mass destruction. So I know how it feels. Experience has told me not to get my hopes up about any particular candidate, especially if he/she is reliant on the youth vote.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Go ahead. What conservative President had bigger deficits than Obama?

The deficit peaked in Bush's last year (obviously, that was a result of the GFC, but if you look at policy, Obama did a lot to reduce deficits, while Bush did a lot to increase them).

Yes, after he rose the deficits to absurd amounts, we should give him credit for when Republicans in the congress brought it down to less absurd amounts.

The fact that you believe this, or expect us to believe it, is astounding.

What are you talking about?

Let's keep this within the timeline of the last 70 years.

As you can see, it went down by a number of a few hundred million near the end of Clinton's term, then went to the same level by the end of Clinton's term.

With the exception of that one anomaly, it's never gone down in 70 years.

Er, that's not adjusted for inflation, population growth, or economic growth. Your conclusion is simply a result of an analytical error.

There's nothing plausible about it. It's an impossibility without serious economic consequences, like investors taking their money to foreign stock markets.

It's actually not very expensive. But whatever. Point is that he knows that to introduce a new spending program, he needs to identify a funding source. You don't see the same incentives for someone like Cruz or Rubio.

There's no point I could make that you'd believe. No short youtube documentary that you'd watch. So, why bother.

Meh. Sounds like you don't really think there's a case. I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say (I suspect you have something confused).

 

[CZMuayThai11]

Can we please add Gilmore to the poll, if only out of pity?

 

[MANIAC123]

Can we please add Gilmore to the poll, if only out of pity?

He is going to surge to 0.1% of the vote tonight..............

 

[Fatt Hughes]

networks pretty much confirming a Trump win without saying it. Only discussion on 2nd and 3rd place, and their strategies going forward.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

The deficit peaked in Bush's last year (obviously, that was a result of the GFC, but if you look at policy, Obama did a lot to reduce deficits, while Bush did a lot to increase them).

Where alternate reality do you live?

'The 2008 deficit totaled $455 billion,'
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/24850
'The Treasury recently reported that the federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, about $960 billion more than the deficit incurred in 2008. CBO notes.'
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/24992

What are you talking about?

Getting older as you type on this thread?

Er, that's not adjusted for inflation, population growth, or economic growth. Your conclusion is simply a result of an analytical error.

None of this is relevant.

It's actually not very expensive. But whatever. Point is that he knows that to introduce a new spending program, he needs to identify a funding source. You don't see the same incentives for someone like Cruz or Rubio.

And that funding source is an impossibility to extract the neccessary fund through taxation, which is larger than most countries annual budgets.

And you're screwing the states out of a needed source of income for their budgets, while adding an average of $500 million to their annual books to pay for the rest.

California would be telling Sanders to fuck himself.

Meh. Sounds like you don't really think there's a case. I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say (I suspect you have something confused).

Lol, sure, Savage, sure.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I hope Kasich comes in second.

Screw Pubio and Cruz.

 

[Fatt Hughes]

Exit poll–2000 interviewed

DDHQ bellwether results:
Clinton 36.52%
Sanders 61.98%

Trump 35.84%
Cruz 15.12%
Kasich 14.94%
Rubio 10.72%
Bush 9.62%#DDNHbellwether #NH

— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) February 10, 2016

2nd is going to be a nail biter.

 

[Fatt Hughes]

EXITS AND GOODNIGHT? Some in newsrooms saying races for first place may be wide enough to call out of gate at 8 pm ET… #NHPrimary

— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE)

I'm hoping Kasich pulls a 2nd. I'm curious to hear his strategy going forward to S.C. Rubio has been blown out the water. Jeb's melt down will be a sight to see tonight.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Where alternate reality do you live?

Huh?

'The 2008 deficit totaled $455 billion,'

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/24850
'The Treasury recently reported that the federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009, about $960 billion more than the deficit incurred in 2008. CBO notes.'
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/24992

Getting older as you type on this thread?

So ... you're not aware that the U.S. fiscal year starts in October? Or that presidential candidates who haven't even been elected yet aren't part of the budgeting process?

None of this is relevant.

Well, if you're trying to honestly evaluate the debt trajectory it is certainly, undeniably relevant. The value of a dollar changes over time. The scale changes. Etc. Let's say inflation were 100% next year. How would that affect the necessary amount of resources needed to pay off existing debt? Cut it in half, right? What about if the population doubled? Then we'd see a halving of necessary per-capita resources needed to pay off existing debt, right?

And that funding source is an impossibility to extract the neccessary fund through taxation, which is larger than most countries annual budgets.

The necessary funding is 0.2% of GDP.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Fiorina should pack it in.

 

[CZMuayThai11]

He is going to surge to 0.1% of the vote tonight..............

Hey, he's already got a solid six votes in NH