I agree with the rest but I don't think Trump necessarily loses to Clinton in a general. And it's far too far out for polling on that to be relevant.

Both candidates have very high unfavourables and both will motivate people to vote against them. I'm not sure whether apathy at two unlikeable candidates or desire to vote against one or the other would win out.

Trump's demonstrated that his support crosses party lines which Hilary's certainly doesn't. And his support has shown no signs of hitting a ceiling. He also can't be smeared - attacks on him simply don't work (and, particularly from Clinton, would only go to make his anti-establishment narrative, bullshit as it may be, all the more compelling for the fuckwits who do/would vote for him).

I think Trump getting the nomination would tear the party apart. But I'm not certain - the GOP is resilient as all fuck.

But from the party's POV I don't think the problem is that he'd lose the general, it's that he might win. In which situation they'd have a republican president who doesn't really represent any of the republican core beliefs.

I agree that they'd rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump (and rightly so).

Still, the dems are also looking more strained than they have for a long time. There's definitely a desire for an actual progressive candidate and, moreover, for the democrats to be an actual progressive party. And, as you say, totem issues aside, Clinton is really a republican. I wouldn't even say 'lite', particularly on economic and foreign issues.

Also worth bearing in mind: As soon as Sanders is out of the race (which probably won't be long now, sadly), Clinton's going to move back the right. Which makes the Republican's job easier come the general (left leaning independents stay at home (except those who can bring themselves to vote Clinton as an anti-Trump measure) and the GOP are far better at wooing even the soft-right independents).

The dems are kinda shooting themselves in the foot. If Sanders were the nominee then he gets Clinton's support by default (because Clinton's support is party-loyal dems). If Clinton wins I suspect a large proportion of Sanders' support will just melt away - either not voting or voting green/similar. Clinton would be only marginally easier for them to vote for than, say, Kasich.

It's a really interesting election though. In terms of just horse-race entertainment value it's fucking awesome.



 

Urgh - so with the latest results that's Sanders out and (pretty much) Trump in, then.

Yup :(

I think Sanders will stay in at least until California, possibly to the convention because unlike normal candidates his funding isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

I think he's intending to influence the platform at the convention and also sticking around just in case Clinton gets indicted.

But yeah in terms of winning more delegates before the convention, unless something miraculous happens in California, he's out.

It's been a wild ride and can only get wilder as November approaches.

"Clinton is really a republican. I wouldn't even say 'lite', particularly on economic and foreign issues."

There's never been a lot of daylight between the two establishment parties' respective positions and power bases, especially since Bill Clinton, America's answer to Tony Blair, swept in. I've said it before: the Repugs hate the Clintons for stealing all their 'best' ideas. Dubya was a bit of an outlier and an extremist, but only in the sense that he handed US foreign policy on a silver platter to Dick Cheney, probably because 9-11 scared the hell out of him and he just couldn't face it.

The Sanders campaign has always had a surreal (perhaps even moreso than Trump), rear-view mirror air to it. It never managed to broaden its appeal much beyond a nostalgic-progressive core, and took too much for granted, resulting in serial, egregious blunders that blindly and willfully ceded huge swaths of delegates to Hillary, just so Bernie could continue to be Bernie. I must assume he bears personal responsibility for his campaign's tone-deafness on issues such as gun control and endemic racism. He is truly trapped by a persona well past it's sell-by date, even if college kids just now discovered it, and think it's novel and cute.

Sanders and Trump have both traded on widespread disaffection in the American hinterland first manifested by the tea party, the sense that the 'social contract', such as it was, has been abandoned and the middle class (now have-nots) with it. There's a lot of economic misery and fear afoot. Dangerous times.

And speaking of fear, Clinton has a potent library of Trump's most toxic rants in her back pocket. All Trump has is: she's a woman, and she's a Clinton. I think we'll see how little traction that has outside of rabid conservatives.

 

It is useful to think about how voters feel vs how party insiders and billionaire funders feel about US political positions.

1) Hillary
- No matter if you like or dislike her personally or her political positions, she will be nearly impossible for anyone to beat.
- Personally, I think she will be very effective if elected, because she is so well connected.
- The problem I have, is that I dislike her policies.  That is not a person dislike, really don't like her positions on things.
- The attacks on her pretty much are ignored by her base, and frankly, most women
- No matter how you shape it, she can draw in women votes from both sides of the aisle, just because she is a woman. 
- The are no remaining, nor hardly any even viable men or women in the republican party that can pull in those votes.
- It "might" be possible to swing some women votes toward the republican candidate if the VP choice is a woman
- She will certainly carry left leaning states in the main election, but it will be much harder for her to win key states like OH, MI, FL, and TX.

2) Sanders
- What you perceive as his "weakness positions", are actually the reasons he has support from the "middle of the road voters", from both parties
- His position on gun rights is far closer to mainstream America thinking than Hillary, and he foolishly backed down on this position, as it was actually one of the the keys to his backing.
- Not everything he said was ideal, especially for someone like me who is more libertarian in thinking, but that is normal.
- In some ways, his appeal crossed over party lines better than most any other candidate.
- He has always had a big, uphill battle to cover against the Clinton stranglehold on the DNC, it is actually amazing that he has gotten this far.
- The real question is - will his backers, who fairly strongly don't like Clinton, be willing to actually vote for Clinton ?  I am not so sure.  In some ways, they could be more likely moved to back Trump, or stay home.

 

It's funny that you think things run on American money, we think it runs on London and Chinese money.

Presidents are not picked by "winning" an election, they are picked by "avoiding loosing".

You might be right, but my perception is slightly different. 

If you look at how Reagan changed the party from "Pre - Reagan" to a "Post Reagan" era, it was by uniting three versions of conservatism:
- Fiscal conservatives - These were "original republicans", many are socially fairly liberal.
- Religious conservatives - These were originally the Southern Democrats, and more or less where Cruz pulls support
- Big Government skepticism conservatives. - These were mostly original Republicans, also many are more open minded that you might think.  They are nearly libertarian in thinking  - Rand Paul

These three groups all sort of put up with each other, but it isn't that they fit together perfectly.

Cruz can only pull from the religious conservatives, and a few fiscal conservatives, but he has virtually no backing from the rest of the historical republican voters.  Romney lost for the same reason, the voters stayed hone or voted third party just out of protest.

I am not sure how Hillary fits into your thinking about being even slightly part of one of those 3 historical parts of the Republican party, but maybe I am missing something.

As far as Trump causing local elections to move toward the DNC - I really doubt it.  The DNC lost those elections - when they could have won, because Bloomberg pushed Obama to go after gun ownership.  They won't admit it, but it was really that simple.  The ongoing siege of (many)  personal rights by Clinton and Bloomberg will keep many actually decent dem candidates out of office.

Republicans that loose elections will be looking to blame someone, but it will be because of what they have done, or not done, not because of Trump.

I am not really sure that it will weaken or destroy the RNC party, but it might move it more toward middle of the road politics than it's somewhat over the top religious bent right now.  

 

A really interesting combination would actually be Trump + Sanders as the VP candidate.  They both are really independents, like most American voters actually are.

If Sanders could bring even 50% of his base with him, it could be a really interesting election.

Sanders and Trump supporters have been fist-fighting. Just saying.

"His position on gun rights is far closer to mainstream America thinking than Hillary, and he foolishly backed down on this position, as it was actually one of the the keys to his backing."

http://time.com/4173116/gun-control-barack-obama-polls/

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

My own best guess is that he's street-smart, but not a deep thinker, nor a polished speaker.  So a bit of both.

He only hires the best...

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-past-clients

Virtually all of the significant aspects of the polls you cite are already existing law.   The articles you are pointing to are just fear factor polls to work toward gun ownership bans by tricking people into thinking that we live in the wild west.  It is well documented that Bloomberg and a few billionaires are funding news articles like this to be written.

Guess what their other big boogey man is?  Sugar.  They want to tax a 25 cent can of pepsi with a 36 cent tax, in addition to the existing sales tax, can recycle fee, etc.  My guess is that pepsi and coke didn't pay him off (buy his over priced advertising) so he is trying to blackmail them)

You can't legally just buy or sell a gun on a whim, the area is heavily managed and monitored, and the penalties are quite severe with life long consequences, even though the products are "legal" and "fundamentally protected by the US Constitution".  They are actually MORE protected than the right to religious freedom and the right to vote.

On the other hand, if you buy or sell heroine on the street, a substance which is a federal offense to posses under most any situation, and kills nearly all of the people associated with it, you can "turn your life around" and get off fairly easily.

If you ask most any legal gun owner, they also support the core ideas of making sure that gun ownership and use is done safely.  The NRA and similar organizations do more to support training and safe gun ownership than anyone.

The DNC actually is actually making gun ownership "less safe", because it makes people think that this right will be taken away (like in most countries), so it drives more gun purchases than would normally happen.

Fist fighting and politics are long time associations.  Sanders supporters are strongly anti-Clinton as well.

I could see either Sanders or Trump as being Candidates I could vote for, as they both actually carry similar concepts.  They are both really "independents", or perhaps just agnostic about the RNC or DNC being correct on many topics.

I'd like to see the facts behind that statement.
 

You think "widespread disaffection is limited to the "American hinterland", given that "There's a lot of economic misery and fear afoot"? You think that is limited to the middle class and rural areas? Please explain. How is there disaffection in one place yet misery and fear - lots? Aren't they both country-wide?

Trump has WAY more than Hillary's propensity to play the femme card, anyone has - he just hasn't used any of it yet. Clinton IS the war on women, but there is so much more negative to her, defeating her should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Jason Fuller:
 

*My comment
 

So, you're not an addict, you can quit anytime you want to.

Is that your position?

Harry, where is your source on the above? Are you the party insider or the billionaire funder?

 

Well-connected didn't seem to serve her well as SOS. How will it translate to a higher position? Tell me: What did she accomplish as SOS that makes her more qualified than anyone else to be POTUS? What world leader will listen to her based on her accomplishments?

Here's one canuckian pundit who thinks Trump could win general election:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/28/its-now-clinton-versus-trump-and-trump-could-win-walkom.html

Trump is, quite frankly, a bloviating buffoon. But is he saying anything different from obama, or clintoon - perhaps what she wants to say, even? Well, except for the femme card bit, but even the most staunch Democrat would have to truthfully admit she plays the femme card, a lot.

It is too soon to say anything is in the can, except for American politics. I'd like to see our campaigns not start two years in advance; 90 days should be enough for anybody to get a political platform out and for the voters (Electoral College) to decide the outcome.