DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Presidential Primaries VIII

It continues...

What a lucky Nation we are to have such wonderful, honest, controlled and peace loving Candidates for our next leader.

We have a lull now as we await the New York Primaries April 19th.

Then on April 26 we will have a bunch with Primaries in...

Connecticut
Maryland
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

Hey, don't forget that Democratic game changer...Wyoming (caucus) this Saturday!

Actually, I would think there are relatively few Dems in Wyoming and those that are would probably be liberal and for Sanders.

I've started losing interest

Bernie is making a good run at it and I think he has made HC a better candidate than 2008. But, I don't see how he will win 3 of the big ones remaining (NY/PA/NJ). One would assume that Clinton could put it away with three big, significant wins.

NY is an interesting state...more conservative and blue collar upstate (and economically depressed) but, NYC often swings due to their population. IF Clinton loses NY that will be catastrophic and embarrassing for her. With respects to PA...other than maybe State College area and parts of Philly suburbs (and maybe some Pitt 'burbs)...Clinton should win PA easily. Not sure about NJ either. I am thinking pockets will go for Sanders while the big/diverse cities will be Clinton territory simply because she is a known factor. But, if there is a Michigan style upset in 2/3 of these states it could be a significant game changer.

CA is a big prize but, it could be too late to make a big difference without winning at least one or two of the three big NE states. I also don't know if CA will lean heavily in favor of Sanders like Washington (and presumably Oregon). I think it may be a lot tighter than that.

Yes! I neglected to switch to the Democrat side of the Primary Chart so I missed Wyoming! I just ass-umed.

You must fire up again for our entire future and the future of Mankind is at stake!

we got 3 snakes running and one guy who's crap won't get passed with the current congress running the show.

what's the point.

Bernie Sanders reminds me of the Browns ...... He talks a great game ....gets his fans all fired up ..... and even looks, from time to time, like he could win .......

But you know that he is going to lose badly in the end.

He just gave an interview about how he would break up the big banks, that showed that he is more sound byte than real policy. He really had no plan, when pressed.

It's heading into the 4th, and he just had a great 3rd quarter. He is still trailing in the game, but it looks like he could be on the come back ... but it's all a mirage.

Cruz facing hostile reception in New York, Trump piles on

The friendly reception Ted Cruz got in Wisconsin – where he was boosted by the state’s governor and its influential conservative talk show hosts – must seem like ages ago as the Texas senator faces a very different scene in New York.

Cruz ran into a decidedly more hostile reception as soon as he started campaigning in the state ahead of the April 19 primary. He was greeted by shouting protesters Wednesday in the Bronx telling him to “get out,” and reportedly saw an event at a high school canceled after students wrote a letter to their principal threatening to walk out if Cruz showed up.

"Ted Cruz has no business being in the Bronx, this is an immigrant community,” one protester shouted.

Fewer than a hundred people showed up for a Cruz meet-and-greet at a local restaurant in the Bronx – and front-runner Donald Trump, who got thumped by Cruz in Wisconsin, was more than happy to play up Cruz’s political problems with New Yorkers.

While Trump, too, faced protesters, he attracted a crowd of thousands for the first rally of his New York campaign swing. He used the occasion to hammer Cruz over past comments mocking “New York values” -- which may be coming back to haunt the Texas senator as he tries to catch up to Trump in the delegate count.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/...ml?intcmp=hpbt3

I think Bernie will win New York and Pennsylvania. I think he will do well everywhere except Maryland and New Jersey. I think he loses close in NJ and gets killed in Maryland.

I found it ironic that they were yelling about immigration in the Bronx ..... saying that Cruz hates immigrants and such ..... when all Trump talks about is building a wall, and hunting down and throwing out those here illegally.

Cruz is no more immigrant "unfriendly" than Trump is.

If that was a person's main motivator, then they would vote for Kasich, who has asked how you tear apart families, hunting down people in their homes, arresting parents while their children remain eligible to stay in the US.

Kasich has been the most moderate voice on this subject among the remaining Republican field.

I think the media is making a big deal out of that. I seriously think Bernie has a basic plan without flushed out details and they interviewed him while worn out and it showed. That's all.

Hillary is trying to disqualify him now, due to this but her plans have not come under scrutiny at all, because her plans are to say whatever she has to to win. At least Bernie has HIS OWN platform.

I think the RNC is using Cruz to stop Trump from getting the nom before the convention. I bet your theory is going to play out, but I'm thinking Paul Ryan gets nominated and Trump will go independent in a fit of rage.

The people have spoken and they like Kasich just a bit more than they liked Bush. Dead issue.

When you are a working immigrant American Citizen, trying to get ahead and illegals keep coming in, working for pennies on the Dollar, holding you down, you keep your mouth shut and vote for a wall.

Trump/Cruz
You Choose

J/C

IMO ...no way the republicans win the presidency. They screwed the pooch with Trump. And Cruz will never get the majority vote in America.

IMO the only sensible choice is Sanders. If Hillary is the next prez we'll just have 8 more years of nothing but obstruction once again.

That one guy will call on the people to apply pressure. I think he'll do more than Obama has been able to get done. Obama tried to appease the Republicans, Bernie will try to work with them first, then turn to the people to pressure the party of no. Maybe, maybe not but we'll see. HERE COMES BERNIE!

I think we are looking at two brokered conventions and at least one third party if not two candidate in the general. Will be amazing if both parties split. I know on the Dem side there will be a lot of Anger if Hillary is the nominee. So much anger that Bernie will be press to run as independent in the general... I HOPE.

Should have stuck to Manhatten. People in Brooklynn, Queens and the Bronx don't want him.

I just don't see much of a chance that Ryan is the nominee. He has had no support, and would be starting from scratch against a person in Clinton, who has a strong organization behind her.

Further, and I am not sure how this works, but wouldn't Ryan then have to complete all of the requirements to get on the ballot in all 50 states?

As far as Trump going independent ..... again, wouldn't he have to start at scratch and get on the ballot in all 50 states? Trump really doesn't have great organizations around the country, and frankly, him as an independent wouldn't be like Perot going as an independent. Trump would likely pull from both sides of the aisle. As an independent, I just don't see what states he could win. I think that his ego could bring him to make such a run, but I just don't see how he could win. He can't really break 40% of any Republican (only) primaries. He might get 20% of the general. Maybe. I just can't see him being able to win under those conditions.

You figure out who you want to support, then design your narrative around it... it's the new way.

I didn't say that Kasich can win the nomination. What I did say is that he has been friendlier to those in the US illegally .... or maybe he has been more realistic ... in saying that there is no way we are going to go door to door in this country, checking credentials as we go. I greatly dislike having people breaking the law being allowed to "win", and allowed to stay. However, realistically, it's hard to dig out 11 million people who are entrenched in this country, and who may have family here who are, indeed, legal.

Kasich's position is more friendly to immigration than Trump's is. (or Cruz, for that matter) If this is the only thing that a NY voter cares about, that the next President not be anti-immigrant, then Trump is probably the worst of the 3 remaining candidates for them.

I agree with you that Kasich is more friendly towards illegals but the people have spoken on his candidacy. Third out of 3.

How bro?

did you see the dance moves Obama had to do to get ANYTHING done?

the only thing republicans hate more than a black, muslim, kenyan guy is a socialist. Bernie has no shot of getting his policies past unless the people vote the republican congress out.

Bernie lived with Mom till he was 40 and has never had a private sector full time job in his life...

YET HE WILL SAVE AMERICA!!!

yea right

i have no idea if he will save america.

seeing as i don't think America needs saving. We are the #1 country on the planet.

Bernie can't even get a majority of his own party to agree with him and you think there are going to be enough people applying pressure on the republicans to get them to act on free this and free that and yes, please raise my taxes?

Just remember, for every Bernie supporter calling their congressman to apply pressure, there will be more than one conservative calling to say that if you pass this, I will never vote for you again... And, as much as it shouldn't matter, it does... the ones calling the Republicans will have a lot more money.

Like with most of Bernie's plans, I think your stance is highly optimistic and probably overly simplistic...

Bernie Sanders bobbled foreign policy in that Daily News interview

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-bobbled-foreign-policy-1401903242035254.html


Bernie Sanders speaks to supporters about foreign policy in March in Salt Lake City. (Photo: John Locher/Associated Press)

Bernie Sanders doesn’t know whether President Obama’s signature counterterrorism strategy, drone strikes, is the right approach to the problem. Fifteen years into a bitter national debate about Guantanamo Bay, he hasn’t thought much about where he would imprison and interrogate a captured terrorist leader. He can’t explain his call for Israel to pull back from some settlements on Palestinian land because he doesn’t have “some paper” in front of him. He also can’t say why he doesn’t support Palestinians taking action against Israel before the International Criminal Court.

Those are all takeaways from a New York Daily News interview with Sanders, whose long-shot campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination has surprised many observers by mounting a real challenge to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Vermont senator’s potent message to voters in 2016 has focused on economic issues, arguing that the very rich have rigged the system in their favor with the help of venal politicians. He has marketed himself as the candidate who will upend the system and has leveraged that appeal into an unlikely string of primary victories, in part thanks to a well-organized campaign ground game and an online machinery that is without peer in the Senate.

He never intended to focus on international relations.

As late as August 2015, when Yahoo News looked at how Sanders would handle foreign policy, his official campaign website did not even have a section on world affairs — though his team has since added one. Sanders has relied on one weapon in his national security duel with Clinton: She voted in favor of authorizing George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq; he voted against it. That argument worked for Obama in 2008, the senator’s aides seem to think, so why not now?

Clinton, who rarely misses a chance to refer to her crisis meetings with Obama in the White House Situation Room and peppers her national security remarks with names of foreign leaders she has met, isn’t invulnerable on foreign policy. Far from it.

But what the awkward Daily News interview confirms is that she has little to fear on that score from the iconoclastic senator from Vermont.

The April 1 question-and-answer session came just a couple of weeks after Sanders laid out his Middle East policy in a detailed speech in Utah that seemed designed to show fluency in world affairs, whatever one might think of the policy particulars. There were common themes to both sets of remarks — defeating the Islamic State requires Muslim ground troops, Middle East peace requires compromises from all sides, etc. But the Sanders who turned up for the interview seemed to have lost fluency on some central questions for candidates vying to be commander in chief.

Sanders repeated his call for Israel to hold off from building new settlements in the West Bank and to pull back from some existing ones that he called “illegal.”

The Daily News asked how much Israel should pull back.

“You’re asking me a very fair question, and if I had some paper in front of me, I would give you a better answer,” Sanders replied. “But I think if the expansion was illegal, moving into territory that was not their territory, I think withdrawal from those territories is appropriate.”

So, if the United States were to determine that some settlements are illegal under existing treaties and agreements, then a Sanders administration would expect Israel to pull back?

“Israel will make their own decisions,” Sanders replied.

The Daily News continued, asking him if he supports the Palestinian leadership’s efforts to drag Israel before the International Criminal Court over alleged war crimes.

No, said Sanders.

“Why not?” the Daily News asked.

“Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world? I’m just telling you that I happen to believe,” said the senator, who went on to say that Israel’s military had engaged in indiscriminate bombings of Palestinians but never said why he opposed bringing in the ICC.

Turning to drone strikes, the Daily News incorrectly said Obama had taken the program away from the CIA and given it to the military, then noted the yearslong controversy over the tactic.

“Do you believe that he’s got the right policy there?” the editorial board asked.

“I don’t know the answer to that. What I do know is that drones are a modern weapon,” Sanders said.

The senator noted that civilian casualties from drone strikes undermine U.S. goals and urged that “whoever is in control of that policy, it has to be refined so that we are killing the people we want to kill and not innocent collateral damage.” (Sanders would have been on firmer ground simply by starting his answer with the mixed assessment he delivered, which echoes some of Obama’s own public remarks about drones.)


Marines and a detainee at Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2002. (Photo: Marc Serota/Reuters)

Where would a Sanders administration imprison and interrogate a captured Islamic State commander?

“Actually I haven’t thought about it a whole lot,” the senator answered. Sanders went on to say that such prisoners should be held in a safe, secure locale, ideally not far from where they were captured, and that he was open to jailing them on U.S. soil.

That’s seen as a necessary position for anyone who supports closing the detention center for suspected extremists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Sanders the presidential candidate supports doing so, while Sanders the senator’s record is mixed.

Sanders isn’t as much of a foreign policy cipher as his opponent and many commentators suggest. He’s not a pacifist, and while he tends to oppose military interventions, he backed the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and voted in favor of giving President Bill Clinton the authority to carry out airstrikes against Serbian targets in Yugoslavia in 1999. He supports the Iran nuclear deal. He opposes Obama’s sweeping trade agreement with Pacific nations. He’s more supportive of the president’s approach to Syria than Clinton, who has called for establishing and defending no-fly zones and repeatedly noted that she favored arming Syrian rebels while Obama did not.

But with the Daily News interview, Sanders played into the hands of critics who charge he simply isn’t interested in or informed about foreign affairs. The Clinton campaign didn’t hesitate to send the transcript of Sanders’ interview to its mass email list.

Neither does the majority of American voters. It's a lost cause on that side of the aisle

AP-GfK Poll: GOP negative ratings surge with Trump's rise

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-gfk-poll-gop-negative-ratings-surge-trumps-182659628--election.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — A big majority of Americans now view the Republican Party unfavorably, according to a new poll that suggests Donald Trump could be dragging down the GOP’s brand.

The Associated Press-GfK poll finds that two out of three people now have an unfavorable view of the party.

The 67 percent unfavorable rating is up from the 58 percent who viewed the GOP negatively in October 2014.

The poll finds that just 30 percent of Americans now have a favorable view of the GOP.

The new poll finds that 48 percent have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while 50 percent have an unfavorable view. Those numbers are largely unchanged since October of 2014.

I'm honestly surprised that it's that high.

20-30 percent is probably the loyalist, on both sides. it could be about normal overall.

Wow.

I honestly don't foresee Bernie winning PA. I think it is a tough state for him to win but, I could be completely wrong and will happily eat crow if so. Sanders has done well with less diverse states (MI, arguably his best prize in diversity but HC won in Detroit area). Sanders' biggest hurdle will be to prove he CAN win in the very diverse states.

NY too will be tough as HC was senator. But, Sanders is a Brooklyn boy and he may appeal to the city. Upstate, however, is very different. I lived there for 2 years doing my Masters and my sister lived there for many before she passed and it really is completely different from NYC. I would expect LI is too.

What do you guys think about THIS possibility...


Assuming neither Trump nor Cruz get the 1237 required to win it out right... if the GOP brings in someone else and props them up as the nominee, the GOP as a party is over. Personally I don't see this is necessarily a bad thing, but if they try to pull that, I'd bet we see the creation of a new major Party.

I think it more likely that there will be a push for Cruz to get the nomination. If this happens, let's assume Trump goes rogue and runs 3rd Party.

BUT...

What about the Democrat side? There are already charges of corruption within their nominating process centered around the whole "Super Delegates" which depending on how you view it, were bought and paid for by Hillary. In any event, even though I don't support Sanders, I think the case can be made that he isn't being given a fair chance. If Hillary gets the nomination, does Sanders simply concede... or does he push forward in his bid to fight corruption and he TOO chooses to run 3rd Party... though by this time it would actually be a 4th Party?

Think about that for a moment: we could possibly end up with 4 candidates for president, and all would have significant enough support that would make them legit.

Maybe it's the little bit of nihilism in me, but I actually think I want to see that happen!

Here is the right way to choose your candidate. It matters not your party affiliation, how could you possibly vote for someone that is clueless about how to eat a pizza?

Even crazy Michelle knows when it's appropriate to grab a handful and go for it.

She knows what she's doing

first off, that's a massive reach by Geraldo. i mean a huge stretch.

second, why is it that we aren't allowed to criticize israel, or jewish people?

why is it that everybody else is free game except them?

we can talk trash about whites, blacks, latino's, arabs, muslims, christians, etc.

but say something about jews? your career could very well end. i don't get it.


Fox News correspondent accuses Cruz of anti-Semitism

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...f-anti-semitism

Fox News correspondent Geraldo Rivera accused Ted Cruz of anti-Semitism, saying his "New York values" comments were a slight against Jewish people.

He also predicted Cruz would get routed in the New York primary, finishing in third place behind Donald Trump and John Kasich.

ADVERTISEMENT

"Aside from the stinking anti-Semitic implications that I see in that whole ‘New York values’ money- and media-coated message that he put out there pandering to those Iowa voters, he also voted against Hurricane Sandy relief. He also voted against compensation for 9/11 victims. This is a man whose interests are absolutely antithetical to New York," Rivera said on the “O'Reilly Factor” Thursday night.
O'Reilly jumped to Cruz's defense, saying he didn't see his comments as anti-Semitic.

"If he says ‘New York Values’ to a bunch of Evangelicals, its not anti-Semitic," O'Reilly said, adding that Cruz was referring to liberal New York Democrats.

"He could have very easily said that," Rivera rebuked. "There's a million ways he could have said that that he did not."

CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin echoed Rivera's argument in a Thursday appearance.

"He said New York values are about money and they're about the media. That's an anti-Semitic trope from a hundred years. It's been around for a very long time," Toobin told Wolf Blitzer.

"Money and media is Jews. I mean this is just an old-fashioned, anti-Semitic stereotype, derogatory term and everybody understands it," Toobin said when Blitzer argued that Cruz was referring to liberals.

Cruz has been facing heat for his New York-tied criticism of Donald Trump ahead of the state's April 19 primary.

Trump and Kasich have used the comments as campaign fodder to sway the vote in the state.

Cruz defended the phrase Thursday, tying “New York values” to liberals like the New York City mayor and the state governor.

"It is people like Mayor Bill de Blasio. It is people like Gov. Cuomo," Cruz said on "Good Morning America" Thursday.

Cruz is currently trailing Trump and Kasich in New York, according to recent polling.

At this time, considering the current political situation where we have Hitler and Mussolini vs a Commie and a Crook,
President Obama needs to take charge, in the name of America's future, and announce he will be serving at least a Third Term!!

J/C
All I know is that TRUMP is what all you libs are clamoring for, A non Politian, that is funding his own campaign,not beholding to any lobbiest,or bundlers and is completely independent of Washington insiders man, he is perfect for you guys but yet somehow your leaders are using all the liberal false narratives like xenophobic, homophobic , mysoginist and the king of em all a racist, but have no problem with the DNC,s and mainstream media completely ignoring Hillay and Sanders failings