http://www.vox.com/2016/2/10/10956978/donald-trump-terrifying "Trump lives by the reality television trope that he's not here to make friends. But the reason reality television villains always say they're not there to make friends is because it sets them apart, makes them unpredictable and fun to watch. "I'm not here to make friends" is another way of saying, "I'm not bound by the social conventions of normal people." The rest of us are here to make friends, and it makes us boring, gentle, kind. This, more than his ideology, is why Trump genuinely scares me. There are places where I think his instincts are an improvement on the Republican field. He seems more dovish than neoconservatives like Marco Rubio, and less dismissive of the social safety net than libertarians like Rand Paul. But those candidates are checked by institutions and incentives that hold no sway over Trump; his temperament is so immature, his narcissism so clear, his political base so unique, his reactions so strange, that I honestly have no idea what he would do — or what he wouldn't do."
I like that DJT is a thought criminal. He plots his own, independent course. He is an American that is NOT beholden to Democrat or Republican politicians. And he seems to genuinely NOT be a puppet of any of the known powers-that-be, including God and/or mysterious beings. El Donaldo is a puzzle that many, many people on each side of the political divide have not been able to solve. He is viciously attacked by different types of Republicans and different types of Democrats. But he is also defended by many citizens that consider themselves to be the same type of Repub/Dem as others that appear to be on "auto-attack mode" 24/7/365. Glenn Beck loathes DJT. So do liberals. And most progressives. Quite the conundrum. Interesting times are upon all of us. (Cause the world might be fixin to burn and/or Bern). Peace and wisdom to one and all.
I'm not sure he has much idea what he would do either. I'm a pretty casual observer on US politics, though i have started getting interested lately, but what I've seen of him I can't quite square with the idea of someone who is fighting for a cause - be it social change, ideological change... some greater cause. I see him more as fighting to become president -- that is the cause, not what he would do as president, because that would make him a 'winner'. Just as earning billions was a measurement of being a winner for him, becoming president is. Anyway, that's my take from what I've seen (a couple of debates, a british TV documentary, and a few articles - which mostely come from an anti-trump perspective (politically opposed or just the pointing and laughing which is the usual british medias standpoint).
I see Sanders as being fundamentally dangerous, not because of his ideas per se (as he wouldn ever be able to implement them so they are fundamentally irrelevant), but because his identity is such that he is more likely to get Cruz or Trump elected. And that is something that is scary and dangerous.
That is my analysis too. I know several of his supporters, here in the state of Washington, and they have tremendous faith in the Bern-meister. Trump vs Bern seems a bit more likely today. Hillary is viewed by too many Americans as more corrupt than should be allowed.
Oh, I forgot to complain about SUPERDELEGATES, whose vote has the weight of basically 10,000 people. MURIKA.
I don't know about Bernie. He won by the expected margin in NH, lost even though he was expected to win in Iowa. He's still expected to lose just about everywhere else. I am not saying he can't do it, as excited as people might be about the win in NH, but my perspective is that things are slightly worse for him after Iowa and NH. I'd say that Clinton is still the more likely candidate at this point, but long ways to go. Additionally, once it goes national, it's a totally different ball game and many on each side simply votes against the other anyway, rather than for their own candidate. A liberal who doesn't like Clinton is still likely to vote Clinton because they will like Cruz or Trump even less.
Clinton won 23 delegates in Iowa and 9 in New Hampshire. Sanders won 21 in Iowa and 15 in New Hampshire. Seeing that, you would think that Sanders was in the lead 36 to 32. Google currently shows that Clinton is ahead 394 to 44 because of Superdelegates.
Though the question of how fair Iowa was is still debated by some, I think it's worth noting that Sanders, in 2015, was 44 points behind Hilary, and is now up 22 points. At least according to this article: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ders-gained-66-points-on-hillary-in-one-year/ That said, Hillary claims to have 500 Super Delegates, so he's NEED that 22% edge to even have a chance. Primaries are ****ed up.
Wikipedia shows that Clinton has 355 superdelegates and Sanders has 14. This is based on an Associated Press survey from November 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016 I believe this isn't set in stone until the DNC when the vote occurs, so there should still be time for those to change. There is a full list if you're curious how your state is going so far.
You are correct that the Superdelegate votes are fluid. The pledged delegates from the voters cannot change.
I thought Clinton was expected to win up until the week prior to Iowa, when Sanders pulled ahead. From what I remember, Sanders was never further ahead than the margin of error, which is how close the caucus ended.
I was being sarcastic. Though I do support Clinton over Obama which makes me out of touch with other Democratic voters of my age cohort.
In either case, the fact that he couldn't win Iowa is problematic given how favorable it should have been for him. The road is much tougher from here on out.
I think that's largely correct. I know at least Microsoft (the same company that counted the votes for both Iowa primaries... for some reason) called it for Hillary prior to the actual voting.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/why-liberals-should-support-a-trump-nomination.html# "Trump’s candidacy represents, among other things, a revolt by the Republican proletariat against its master class. That is why National Review devoted a cover editorial and 22 columns to denouncing Trump as a heretic to the conservative movement. A Trump nomination might not actually cleave the GOP in two, but it could wreak havoc. If, like me, you think the Republican Party in its current incarnation needs to be burned to the ground and rebuilt anew, Trump is the only one holding a match."
