Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

So who is still a serious contender? Trump, Carson, Cruz?

That depends on where you look mostly, if going by people in the double digits, Trump, Cruz, Rubio for nationally with Christie and Kasich in NH. The thing is that with a field this crowded and sliced up, plus the ambiguousity of the polls, how do you define 'serious contender'?

[Frumple]

Dunno if carson's dropping, but he definitely has been losing folks to other candidates' campaigns. Lost two fairly high up ground campaign critters in... one of the states, I'unno, to Cruz just recently.

[smjjames]

Trump is still going strong, Cruz is second behind Trump, last I heard about Carson he was dropping out and his supporters were going to Cruz instead.

Has he?  If so this will blow the predictions game wide open.

He hasn't dropped out yet.

He definetly isn't doing well and appears to be dying/hemhorraging in NH. I also saw something about a former Carson staffer or something defecting to Cruz.

[Shadowlord]

Is he running out of money to pay them, or are they just fleeing a sinking ship, I wonder?

[smjjames]

Maybe both? The staffing has been shaken multiple times and he has been on a downwards trajectory for some time.

[RedKing]

Bit of column A, bit of column B. Carson did extraordinarily well in the early money game, but I think the cash spigots have started to dry up after all his gaffes.

I'd say the serious contenders at this point are Trump, Cruz and Rubio. Jeb may hang around for a long time though, just because he has cosmic fucktons of money in his SuperPAC and still a fair amount of establishment backing. The degree to which that backing starts to migrate to Rubio will determine Jeb's longevity.


Worth noting that in the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, not only is Sanders polling better head-to-head against GOP candidates than Hillary in the early primary states, in most cases it's a race flip as a result:

Iowa: Trump vs. Clinton    Clinton 48, Trump 40            Clinton +8
Iowa: Trump vs. Sanders    Sanders 51, Trump 38    Sanders +13

Iowa: Cruz vs. Clinton    Cruz 47, Clinton 43            Cruz +4
Iowa: Cruz vs. Sanders    Sanders 47, Cruz 42            Sanders +5

Iowa: Rubio vs. Clinton    Rubio 47, Clinton 42            Rubio +5
Iowa: Rubio vs. Sanders    Rubio 44, Sanders 44     Tie

New Hampshire: Trump vs. Clinton    Clinton 45, Trump 44            Clinton +1
New Hampshire: Trump vs. Sanders    Sanders 56, Trump 37    Sanders +19

New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Clinton    Clinton 44, Cruz 48            Cruz +4
New Hampshire: Cruz vs. Sanders    Sanders 55, Cruz 37            Sanders +18

New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Clinton    Rubio 52, Clinton 40            Rubio +12
New Hampshire: Rubio vs. Sanders    Sanders 50, Rubio 41     Sanders +9



The good news out of all that is that Trump looks to be the weakest candidate in the general election, and simultaneously the most likely GOP candidate at this point.

[Spehss _]

Just want to say I'm not keeping track of Carson, and I was posting hearsay of what I heard or thought I heard.

Probably should've added a disclaimer before posting that. :v

[mainiac]

General election polls before the Iowa caucus have very little predictive value, if in fact they have any at all.  A lot of factors that push those numbers right now will be a distant memory by November.

[Spehss _]

News on Clinton

Spoiler: links (click to show/hide)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/11/report-fbi-investigation-of-hillary-clinton-expands/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/report-fbi-now-investigating-hillarys-state-department-for-corruption/

Primary source is Fox News, so it may or may not be biased. Fox News' source is supposedly the FBI however.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

[smjjames]

News on Clinton

Spoiler: links (click to show/hide)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/11/report-fbi-investigation-of-hillary-clinton-expands/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/report-fbi-now-investigating-hillarys-state-department-for-corruption/

Primary source is Fox News, so it may or may not be biased. Fox News' source is supposedly the FBI however.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

It's Faux News, of course it's biased.

Going to see if theres any other articles though.

Edit: Also, you are a massive fool for linking breitbart, do we need to explain how bad it is to you?

Theres nothing on CNN or Politico anyhow.

[Shadowlord]

So vague about their sources! Maybe it's bullshit, maybe it's not. Who knows?

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340.

This is unrelated to their claims about corruption, but the emails that were all unclassified when they were sent or received?

[Spehss _]

Edit: Also, you are a massive fool for linking breitbart, do we need to explain how bad it is to you?

Theres nothing on CNN or Politico anyhow.

I'm not familiar with the reputation of various internet news sources. I'm only just now getting into following news stories.

I saw some news articles and wanted to see what the Bay12 election thread thought of it. Maybe I should just lurk the thread instead. At this point I'm starting to think everything ever talked about ever except for hard science is just hearsay.

[smjjames]

Well, Reuters has it (and that's more reputable than Fox): http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0UP1XC20160111

also some of this: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-emails-lawsuits-dismissed-217581

Edit: Also, you are a massive fool for linking breitbart, do we need to explain how bad it is to you?

Theres nothing on CNN or Politico anyhow.

I'm not familiar with the reputation of various internet news sources. I'm only just now getting into following news stories.

I saw some news articles and wanted to see what the Bay12 election thread thought of it. Maybe I should just lurk the thread instead. At this point I'm starting to think everything ever talked about ever except for hard science is just hearsay.

I guess you're forgiven for grabbing whatever was at the top.

Anyways, If Clinton DOES get sucked into a lengthy trial and forced to abdicate her candidacy throne, will Sanders automatically become the nominee or like what?

[Shadowlord]

Speaking of news and science, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/04/heres-how-scientific-misinformation-such-as-climate-doubt-spreads-through-social-media/

[smjjames]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/rand-paul-campaign-217604 Rand Paul is probably feeling somewhat frustrated by now, heh.