Cruz draws first blood in USA Republican race; Clinton claims narrowest of victories for Democrats

[chuckd]

Some of our more vocal Republican haters might do well to look at their own slate of candidates.

It would seem the Iowa caucus has proven one thing for certain.

Half of the Iowa voters don't like half of the Democrat candidates.

The other half of the voters don't like the other half of the candidates.

The constant attack on the Republican front runners does little.

[Credo]

Does that mean you are voting for Bernie? I would, except for the killing the Golden Goose part. I have little doubt that is what would happen, but I think his heart is in the right place.

Yes, I'm voting for Bernie, whether he gets the nomination or not.

C'mon, you know he's not going to get that whole wish list of his, but I don't think you've seen America's infrastructure lately; it's crumbling. Like him I believe health care is a citizen's right and I'm sick of these unnecessary and unproductive wars. More than anything though, I'd like to see some kind of campaign finance reform. Whether your sympathies lean left or right, you should too. Current campaign finance rules have absolutely gutted our democracy. Time after time, politicians of both parties push legislation that NOBODY wants.

I'd like to leave something better than what exists now for my kids.

It's not often I agree with you, Lannarebirth, but I think you are spot on. I actually have two choices I'd support, Trump or Sanders. I don't really like Trump, but the one grace that he has is that he has not been bought by the lobbyists and the big corporations. Sanders is the same and the difference is that if Sanders hasn't been bought by now, he's simply not for sale. Sanders also has experience and background.

I think in the US a lot of people actually think that one day they will be a part of that 1% , but it isn't going to happen. That big powerball lottery is already split up.

[elgordo38]

Will Bernie give them stuff too?

Like Obama on steroids. If you are poor and don't mind killing the Golden Goose for your kids, Bernie is your man.

I'm not poor by any measure. I do have children and I do pay US taxes and I currently reside in the US. Lots of people commenting in this thread have and do none of those things.

I don't like paying taxes but I don't mind so much if I can see that most or even some of it is put to use that enhance the society I live in and lessen some of the burdens for the majority of the people that live in it. and

Frankly, I can't see how perpetual war and massive subsidies and tax breaks to Fortune 500 corporations and financial speculation firms is helping my society. I can't see how individuals who make massive income shouldn't pay a disproportionate share of the burden seeing as how they use a disproportionate amount of resources and earn a disproportionate amount of the national income.

I didn't always feel this way, but then once upon a time risk takers were the sole entities that could profit or lose from the risk they undertook. Now, the downside risk has been socialized(if you will) and the upside is taxed lightly or not at all.

FWIW, I'm upper middle class, I fully expect my children will be the same. They and I will pay more, and that's OK with me. I am getting zero return on my tax dollars as things stand now.

If your upper middle class unless your in the stock market your savings are earning 0 zilch. If your in the market hang onto your hat. Yes your getting zero return on your tax dollars and also a debt accumulation of 20 trillion dollars which you can pass onto your children. What you say in the second last paragraph is true possibly understated. The good part is your sitting in the cock bird seat possibly retired and hoping SS lasts but then you seem to not need to rely on SS. Your children will benefit from all the fruits of robotic labor go fishing to pass the time hmm maybe not as the big money boys hate to pass any profits along they want it all lock stock and barrel. Oh thats for them to worry about.

[elgordo38]

Does that mean you are voting for Bernie? I would, except for the killing the Golden Goose part. I have little doubt that is what would happen, but I think his heart is in the right place.

Yes, I'm voting for Bernie, whether he gets the nomination or not.

C'mon, you know he's not going to get that whole wish list of his, but I don't think you've seen America's infrastructure lately; it's crumbling. Like him I believe health care is a citizen's right and I'm sick of these unnecessary and unproductive wars. More than anything though, I'd like to see some kind of campaign finance reform. Whether your sympathies lean left or right, you should too. Current campaign finance rules have absolutely gutted our democracy. Time after time, politicians of both parties push legislation that NOBODY wants.

I'd like to leave something better than what exists now for my kids.

As the bible states you and I have seen the 7 fat years. I worry about my kids but there is little I can do and although they are retired kids they sometimes act like financial lemmings.

[lannarebirth]

Does that mean you are voting for Bernie? I would, except for the killing the Golden Goose part. I have little doubt that is what would happen, but I think his heart is in the right place.

Yes, I'm voting for Bernie, whether he gets the nomination or not.

C'mon, you know he's not going to get that whole wish list of his, but I don't think you've seen America's infrastructure lately; it's crumbling. Like him I believe health care is a citizen's right and I'm sick of these unnecessary and unproductive wars. More than anything though, I'd like to see some kind of campaign finance reform. Whether your sympathies lean left or right, you should too. Current campaign finance rules have absolutely gutted our democracy. Time after time, politicians of both parties push legislation that NOBODY wants.

I'd like to leave something better than what exists now for my kids.

It's not often I agree with you, Lannarebirth, but I think you are spot on. I actually have two choices I'd support, Trump or Sanders. I don't really like Trump, but the one grace that he has is that he has not been bought by the lobbyists and the big corporations. Sanders is the same and the difference is that if Sanders hasn't been bought by now, he's simply not for sale. Sanders also has experience and background.

I think in the US a lot of people actually think that one day they will be a part of that 1% , but it isn't going to happen. That big powerball lottery is already split up.

Well there's your first mistake...

[lannarebirth]

Does that mean you are voting for Bernie? I would, except for the killing the Golden Goose part. I have little doubt that is what would happen, but I think his heart is in the right place.

Yes, I'm voting for Bernie, whether he gets the nomination or not.

C'mon, you know he's not going to get that whole wish list of his, but I don't think you've seen America's infrastructure lately; it's crumbling. Like him I believe health care is a citizen's right and I'm sick of these unnecessary and unproductive wars. More than anything though, I'd like to see some kind of campaign finance reform. Whether your sympathies lean left or right, you should too. Current campaign finance rules have absolutely gutted our democracy. Time after time, politicians of both parties push legislation that NOBODY wants.

I'd like to leave something better than what exists now for my kids.

As the bible states you and I have seen the 7 fat years. I worry about my kids but there is little I can do and although they are retired kids they sometimes act like financial lemmings.

You try to set them on a path to success but its up to them to stay on it. I guess we stop worrying when we're dead.

[EyesWideOpen]

Will Bernie give them stuff too?

Like Obama on steroids. If you are poor and don't mind killing the Golden Goose for your kids, Bernie is your man.

Now THAT is funny !!! I am going to use that phrase , Obama

on steriods......... Bernie has no chance of winning a national

election, so am really not that worried about him pissing away

the future of my kids with endless welfare giveaways...

[tonbridgebrit]

"DES MOINES: They both emerged winners from the first contest of the US 2016 presidentials, even though this was only a caucus and not even a primary, but only Ted Cruz will be celebrating.

That is because Hillary Clinton only won by a wafer-thin margin against Bernie Sanders, and he is likely to stalk her hard from now on.

The big loser by far was Republican interloper Donald Trump, who came within a whisker of trailing third after Marco Rubio made a strong showing. The poll frontrunner is likely to do better in New Hampshire, but this was a bubble-pricking moment for the great showman.

Clinton’s problems will only get worse in New Hampshire, a proper primary, and where Sanders is popular and in the lead. Voters here see his record in neighbouring Vermont, and they like it.

So close was the Clinton-Sanders faceoff a coin toss had to decide certain precincts, as dead heats could not be decided any other way.

It hardly seemed credible barely six months ago, but Bernie Sander’s self-avowed “democratic socialism” is winning over the under 40s in droves, while Clinton is failing to ignite passions among the young. The last time passion overturned experience a certain Barack Obama made it to the White House."




Okay, what does all this mean ? Basically, it's going to be a massive fight between Hillary Clnton and Bernie Sanders. I really do hope that Bernie Sanders will do it.
Okay, if you are an American, and if you support the Democrats, who would you go for ? Bernie or Hillary ? Okay, if YOU reckoned that the Bush invasion of Iraq was good, then, cheer on Hillary. See, a lot of Americans forget or ignore the issue of how Hillary backed and supported Bush on the invasion of Iraq.
Americans, do realise, if you didn't like Bush, then you should accept that Hillary Clinton is just as much a war monger. With Hillary in charge, America will be back to bombing Arab Muslim countries again. That's not a good thing.

America, please do planet earth a favour, show the world that peace can be done, there's no need for us to have a load of wars. Killing a load of Muslims is NOT something that has to be done. Why go and butcher a load of Muslims ? They're not gong to invade America or Europe.

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

These wingnut Republican candidates (all the same) are going to need a big piece of the 81% of the electorate that are women and minorities.

They don't have a prayer. It doesn't manner how many of the evangelicals are praying. It simply ain't gonna happen.

Bernie or HRC in a landslide. Doesn't matter who. We just can not let one of these right wing stooges appoint another Supreme Court Justice. They've done enough damage as is.

Yes that's a Republican. They even hate Republicans and their shadows...

[wwest5829]

Will Bernie give them stuff too?

Like Obama on steroids. If you are poor and don't mind killing the Golden Goose for your kids, Bernie is your man.

I'm not poor by any measure. I do have children and I do pay US taxes and I currently reside in the US. Lots of people commenting in this thread have and do none of those things.

I don't like paying taxes but I don't mind so much if I can see that most or even some of it is put to use that enhance the society I live in and lessen some of the burdens for the majority of the people that live in it. and

Frankly, I can't see how perpetual war and massive subsidies and tax breaks to Fortune 500 corporations and financial speculation firms is helping my society. I can't see how individuals who make massive income shouldn't pay a disproportionate share of the burden seeing as how they use a disproportionate amount of resources and earn a disproportionate amount of the national income.

I didn't always feel this way, but then once upon a time risk takers were the sole entities that could profit or lose from the risk they undertook. Now, the downside risk has been socialized(if you will) and the upside is taxed lightly or not at all.

FWIW, I'm upper middle class, I fully expect my children will be the same. They and I will pay more, and that's OK with me. I am getting zero return on my tax dollars as things stand now.

Thank you! I find myself in much the same frame of mind. My situation is different, however. While I have a Master's Degree + and retired as a Professor, I find that my $2400.00 monthly income certainly goes further in retirement here in Thailand. My judgement is that I cannot afford to live in my home country as well, or of at all due to expenses. While I too pay my taxes, they are rather small due to limited income. Still, I view our country as, E Pluribus Unum, not its everyone for themselves.

[sgtsabai]

S. Carolina will be Bernie's next big test. N. Hampshire should be a walk in the park for him but I'll bet he campaigns there the same as Iowa. Actually he needs to blow Hillary out of the park there to make an unforgettable showing. Most people here have already said most of what needs to be said about the neocon/neoliberal tool of Wall street criminals and banksters, Hillary. Her sudden moves to the left mean absolutely nothing, just a ploy. He will have to capture more of the minority vote because most don't know about his years of activism for minorities. Perhaps now the lame stream corporate media will have to pay attention although I expect most will be at least an attempt a negative. Like many have said, Trump will "blown out" from all the hot wind he spews. People do have to pay attention to Cruz, very, very dangerous to America and Cruz who is perhaps 2nd most dangerous. They said for absolutely everything that America shouldn't stand for. A little bit about Hillary and how she will get along with Republicans, which really shouldn't be a problem, after all she is just another Manchurian candidate: http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=199162

[Throatwobbler]

Some of our more vocal Republican haters might do well to look at their own slate of candidates.

It would seem the Iowa caucus has proven one thing for certain.

Half of the Iowa voters don't like half of the Democrat candidates.

The other half of the voters don't like the other half of the candidates.

The constant attack on the Republican front runners does little.

And they will unite against the republican candidate come November.

[helpisgood]

Wow

What a bunch of bull.

A caucas can comprise of 12 guys drinking beers at my house.

Where is the popular votes?

Wow

What a bunch of bull.

A caucas can comprise of 12 guys drinking beers at my house.

Where is the popular votes?

Just noticed.....Ted Cruz was born in Canada

I thought by law, only US BORN citizens can be elected presidents

Regarding Ted Cruz, the exact requirement from Art. I, sec. 2 of the US Constitution is: "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States."

Maybe someone knows more of the details, but I believe that there is still not a very clear legal definition of this. John McCain was born on a US naval air station in Panama. I think many would think that's close enough to fall within the definition despite not being within the fifty states. So, it may not be that easy to define. I think there is also some who have argued that merely having one parent as a US citizen is enough even if the child was born on foreign soil.

I am not sure, but my point is that I do not think there is a clear definition of that requirement.

By the way, I am not a Ted Cruz supporter. I just think you have raised a really good question.

[Chicog]

Rand Paul has "suspended his campaign".

Christie is about to speak - no suggest he's going to fold as well.

[Chicog]

Maybe someone knows more of the details, but I believe that there is still not a very clear legal definition of this. John McCain was born on a US naval air station in Panama. I think many would think that's close enough to fall within the definition despite not being within the fifty states. So, it may not be that easy to define. I think there is also some who have argued that merely having one parent as a US citizen is enough even if the child was born on foreign soil.

I am not sure, but my point is that I do not think there is a clear definition of that requirement.

As I tried to explain earlier, they based the law on British law, which was equally vague.

The Brits went on to qualify their law. The US never has.

So ultimately I believe it could be appealed all the way to SCOTUS.

[Dumbastheycome]

Cruz and Clinton, big win for Wall Street. Obviously Americans yet to be fed up with cronyism, corruption, oligarchy, different laws for the rich, and their country decaying. What is it, TV or a dumbed down education system?

Is there anything more?

[up-country_sinclair]

Trump is accusing Senator Cruz of fraud and insisting that Iowa hold another election. Seriously. He wants everyone in to caucus again.

Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016

Edited February 3, 2016 by up-country_sinclair

[Publicus]

 

Go on, BERNIE, do it, go and beat Hillary Clinton for the leadership of your party. Go and become the leader of your nation.

Hillary Clinton, America must not forget that you backed the Bush invasion of Iraq back in 2003. See, Americans go on and on about how they don't like Bush, and how the Iraq war was not a good thing. Hillary does have support, and yet, Hillary backed the Iraq invasion. Hillary Clinton, if George Bush was a war monger, well, in that case, so are YOU, Hillary Clinton.

Lots of people backed it.

Because they were lied to about WMD's.

I'm sure the resident Clinton mouthpiece will be along shortly to spin this his way but this is a kick in the teeth for the Clinton Dynasty. On to NH where she probably doesn't even come close to a dead heat.

ABC...Anyone But Clinton.

 

Any Republican against Clinton in November loses.

That equals ARAgCINL.

And it's the sound the Republican party is making coming out of I-o-way and going into the Granite State up further north and over there on the big ocean. A stone's throw from Boston it is.

Not anywhere near enough "courageous conservatives" in NH of the kind Cruz likes. The bulk of Republicans up there are nutcase enough to swarm for Trump.

Mainstream Republicans in NH who are also mainstream in their religion are scattered among the candidates of their own kind, namely Kasich, Bush, Christie ---Rubio somewhat so far.

Rubio has truly bizarro religious views and affiliations, which is what brought him forward in Iowa which itself has a huge number of Republican rightwing religious nutcases. Rubio certainly didn't do any campaigning of consequence in Iowa. He instead promoted very quietly his tin foil church history of religious belief and worship.

Rotsa ruck with this crew.

[Publicus]

 

Wow

What a bunch of bull.

A caucas can comprise of 12 guys drinking beers at my house.

Where is the popular votes?

Wow

What a bunch of bull.

A caucas can comprise of 12 guys drinking beers at my house.

Where is the popular votes?

Just noticed.....Ted Cruz was born in Canada

I thought by law, only US BORN citizens can be elected presidents

Regarding Ted Cruz, the exact requirement from Art. I, sec. 2 of the US Constitution is: "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States."

Maybe someone knows more of the details, but I believe that there is still not a very clear legal definition of this. John McCain was born on a US naval air station in Panama. I think many would think that's close enough to fall within the definition despite not being within the fifty states. So, it may not be that easy to define. I think there is also some who have argued that merely having one parent as a US citizen is enough even if the child was born on foreign soil.

I am not sure, but my point is that I do not think there is a clear definition of that requirement.

By the way, I am not a Ted Cruz supporter. I just think you have raised a really good question.

This is a material point which Chicog also sums up succinctly.

It hasn't ever been clarified and will certainly need clarification.

Several suits have been filed already in the federal district courts (the entry point to the federal judiciary). The technical issue of the presently filed cases is standing. They likely don't show any present plaintiff to have been harmed. That is, there isn't any Republican party nominee with the certificates to prove it bearing down directly on the office in a one on one matchup.

The actual test would not come unless Raphael Edward "Ted" Cruz did get the nomination. Then one certainly could show the federal judiciary the Constitution would be harmed....if.....and based on, as you point out.

Yes, this goes back to Blackstone and English common law. The English clarified it, Americans have not. Congress has passed laws about it but scotus is the final authority, aways has been.

Central point is that for every federal office the constitution says one word --citizen. For office of potus only, it says 'natural born citizen'. Potus and vp are the only two offices in the Constitution that say "natural born citizen."

So the question is what does that mean....

The 4th potus James Madison, who was the Constitutional Convention's lawyer (as it were), wrote those provisions. His rationale still stands: "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

Either way regardless, the question needs judicial attention and treatment.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Publicus

[lannarebirth]

 

Go on, BERNIE, do it, go and beat Hillary Clinton for the leadership of your party. Go and become the leader of your nation.

Hillary Clinton, America must not forget that you backed the Bush invasion of Iraq back in 2003. See, Americans go on and on about how they don't like Bush, and how the Iraq war was not a good thing. Hillary does have support, and yet, Hillary backed the Iraq invasion. Hillary Clinton, if George Bush was a war monger, well, in that case, so are YOU, Hillary Clinton.

Lots of people backed it.

Because they were lied to about WMD's.

I'm sure the resident Clinton mouthpiece will be along shortly to spin this his way but this is a kick in the teeth for the Clinton Dynasty. On to NH where she probably doesn't even come close to a dead heat.

ABC...Anyone But Clinton.

 

Any Republican against Clinton in November loses.

That equals ARAgCINL.

And it's the sound the Republican party is making coming out of I-o-way and going into the Granite State up further north and over there on the big ocean. A stone's throw from Boston it is.

Not anywhere near enough "courageous conservatives" in NH of the kind Cruz likes. The bulk of Republicans up there are nutcase enough to swarm for Trump.

Mainstream Republicans in NH who are also mainstream in their religion are scattered among the candidates of their own kind, namely Kasich, Bush, Christie ---Rubio somewhat so far.

Rubio has truly bizarro religious views and affiliations, which is what brought him forward in Iowa which itself has a huge number of Republican rightwing religious nutcases. Rubio certainly didn't do any campaigning of consequence in Iowa. He instead promoted very quietly his tin foil church history of religious belief and worship.

Rotsa ruck with this crew.

Democratic leadership displaying the same hubris as the Republican leadership. Both parties trying to foist unelectable candidates on the voting public. It's all about match ups. If Hilary is the nominee and the Rep. establishment gets their wish for Cruz or Rubio, Hillary wins. If they don't get what they want and Trump survives the convention, Hillary loses.

Personally, I don't think Hillary will be the nominee despite the wishes of the Democratic hierarchy. If she isn't Sanders takes both Cruz or Rubio. Not sure about a Trump match up. That's just too surreal to contemplate as yet.

Anyhow, a pretty thoughtful piece from behind Republican party lines:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572?paginate=false

[Publicus]

 

 

Go on, BERNIE, do it, go and beat Hillary Clinton for the leadership of your party. Go and become the leader of your nation.

Hillary Clinton, America must not forget that you backed the Bush invasion of Iraq back in 2003. See, Americans go on and on about how they don't like Bush, and how the Iraq war was not a good thing. Hillary does have support, and yet, Hillary backed the Iraq invasion. Hillary Clinton, if George Bush was a war monger, well, in that case, so are YOU, Hillary Clinton.

Lots of people backed it.

Because they were lied to about WMD's.

I'm sure the resident Clinton mouthpiece will be along shortly to spin this his way but this is a kick in the teeth for the Clinton Dynasty. On to NH where she probably doesn't even come close to a dead heat.

ABC...Anyone But Clinton.

 

Any Republican against Clinton in November loses.

That equals ARAgCINL.

And it's the sound the Republican party is making coming out of I-o-way and going into the Granite State up further north and over there on the big ocean. A stone's throw from Boston it is.

Not anywhere near enough "courageous conservatives" in NH of the kind Cruz likes. The bulk of Republicans up there are nutcase enough to swarm for Trump.

Mainstream Republicans in NH who are also mainstream in their religion are scattered among the candidates of their own kind, namely Kasich, Bush, Christie ---Rubio somewhat so far.

Rubio has truly bizarro religious views and affiliations, which is what brought him forward in Iowa which itself has a huge number of Republican rightwing religious nutcases. Rubio certainly didn't do any campaigning of consequence in Iowa. He instead promoted very quietly his tin foil church history of religious belief and worship.

Rotsa ruck with this crew.

Democratic leadership displaying the same hubris as the Republican leadership. Both parties trying to foist unelectable candidates on the voting public. It's all about match ups. If Hilary is the nominee and the Rep. establishment gets their wish for Cruz or Rubio, Hillary wins. If they don't get what they want and Trump survives the convention, Hillary loses.

Personally, I don't think Hillary will be the nominee despite the wishes of the Democratic hierarchy. If she isn't Sanders takes both Cruz or Rubio. Not sure about a Trump match up. That's just too surreal to contemplate as yet.

Anyhow, a pretty thoughtful piece from behind Republican party lines:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572?paginate=false

Better to ignore perceived hubris to instead focus on facts.

The past eight weeks Gallup has been doing ongoing polling of the electorate.

27% of Independent voters have an "unfavorable" view of Donald Trump.

25% of Republicans say they can't vote for Trump under any circumstances.

Republican suburban women can't recognise the Republican party Donald Trump is trying to gain control of.

Trump's Image Among Democrats, Independents Most Negative of Any GOP Candidate

JANUARY 14, 2016

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188177/trump-image-among-democrats-independents-negative-gop-candidate.aspx

GALLUP: TRUMP WOULD BE MOST UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE IN THEIR POLLING HISTORY

http://themoderatevoice.com/gallup-trump-would-be-most-unpopular-candidate-in-their-polling-history/

To say HR Clinton will not get the nomination also flies in the face of facts on the ground, i.e., reality. Anyone saying this would need to argue facts on the ground in the coming primary and caucus states will necessarily change after New Hampshire. The post fails in this respect. It is instead pronouncements and declaratory statements hanging in dense air.

Reading what one describes as a 'thoughtful' piece is not a credential. It isn't even an indication.

[lannarebirth]

 

Democratic leadership displaying the same hubris as the Republican leadership. Both parties trying to foist unelectable candidates on the voting public. It's all about match ups. If Hilary is the nominee and the Rep. establishment gets their wish for Cruz or Rubio, Hillary wins. If they don't get what they want and Trump survives the convention, Hillary loses.

Personally, I don't think Hillary will be the nominee despite the wishes of the Democratic hierarchy. If she isn't Sanders takes both Cruz or Rubio. Not sure about a Trump match up. That's just too surreal to contemplate as yet.

Anyhow, a pretty thoughtful piece from behind Republican party lines:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572?paginate=false

Better to ignore perceived hubris to instead focus on facts.

The past eight weeks Gallup has been doing ongoing polling of the electorate.

27% of Independent voters have an "unfavorable" view of Donald Trump.

25% of Republicans say they can't vote for Trump under any circumstances.

Republican suburban women can't recognise the Republican party Donald Trump is trying to gain control of.

Trump's Image Among Democrats, Independents Most Negative of Any GOP Candidate

JANUARY 14, 2016

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188177/trump-image-among-democrats-independents-negative-gop-candidate.aspx

GALLUP: TRUMP WOULD BE MOST UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE IN THEIR POLLING HISTORY

http://themoderatevoice.com/gallup-trump-would-be-most-unpopular-candidate-in-their-polling-history/

To say HR Clinton will not get the nomination also flies in the face of facts on the ground, i.e., reality. Anyone saying this would need to argue facts on the ground in the coming primary and caucus states will necessarily change after New Hampshire. The post fails in this respect. It is instead pronouncements and declaratory statements hanging in dense air.

Reading what one describes as a 'thoughtful' piece is not a credential. It isn't even an indication.

Thanks for posting Trump's favorability amongst Democrats and Independents. Just for the sake of balance could you post the current favorability of Hillary amongst Republicans and Independents? The most recent survey I saw was July and it was already negative then, which obviously doesn't mean much, same as your poll. Thanks in advance.

Edited February 3, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Publicus]

 

Maybe someone knows more of the details, but I believe that there is still not a very clear legal definition of this. John McCain was born on a US naval air station in Panama. I think many would think that's close enough to fall within the definition despite not being within the fifty states. So, it may not be that easy to define. I think there is also some who have argued that merely having one parent as a US citizen is enough even if the child was born on foreign soil.

I am not sure, but my point is that I do not think there is a clear definition of that requirement.

As I tried to explain earlier, they based the law on British law, which was equally vague.

The Brits went on to qualify their law. The US never has.

So ultimately I believe it could be appealed all the way to SCOTUS.

All it would take is one state to reject Cruz on its state ballot. If Cruz were the Republican nominee then one, any or all of the 50 states could challenge this. Whether Cruz were on the ballot for potus or vice president.

But all it would take is one state to determine that, based on its state constitution and the US Constitution, Cruz does not meet eligibility qualifications of the office. A state could thus decline to place his name on its ballot. A state does have this authority. Any state.

Cruz would have to respond in a filing with the federal judiciary at the appropriate federal district court. Or courts if there were more than one state, somewhere else. Thus would begin the dance of litigation.

The (each) state runs its own elections. Washington runs nothing on polling day, before it or after it.

Most likely state(s) to make such a determination is one or more of: California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Illinois, Washington state and perhaps a few others.

That it would be momentous is beyond doubt.

[Publicus]

 

 

Democratic leadership displaying the same hubris as the Republican leadership. Both parties trying to foist unelectable candidates on the voting public. It's all about match ups. If Hilary is the nominee and the Rep. establishment gets their wish for Cruz or Rubio, Hillary wins. If they don't get what they want and Trump survives the convention, Hillary loses.

Personally, I don't think Hillary will be the nominee despite the wishes of the Democratic hierarchy. If she isn't Sanders takes both Cruz or Rubio. Not sure about a Trump match up. That's just too surreal to contemplate as yet.

Anyhow, a pretty thoughtful piece from behind Republican party lines:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572?paginate=false

Better to ignore perceived hubris to instead focus on facts.

The past eight weeks Gallup has been doing ongoing polling of the electorate.

27% of Independent voters have an "unfavorable" view of Donald Trump.

25% of Republicans say they can't vote for Trump under any circumstances.

Republican suburban women can't recognise the Republican party Donald Trump is trying to gain control of.

Trump's Image Among Democrats, Independents Most Negative of Any GOP Candidate

JANUARY 14, 2016

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188177/trump-image-among-democrats-independents-negative-gop-candidate.aspx

GALLUP: TRUMP WOULD BE MOST UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE IN THEIR POLLING HISTORY

http://themoderatevoice.com/gallup-trump-would-be-most-unpopular-candidate-in-their-polling-history/

To say HR Clinton will not get the nomination also flies in the face of facts on the ground, i.e., reality. Anyone saying this would need to argue facts on the ground in the coming primary and caucus states will necessarily change after New Hampshire. The post fails in this respect. It is instead pronouncements and declaratory statements hanging in dense air.

Reading what one describes as a 'thoughtful' piece is not a credential. It isn't even an indication.

Thanks for posting Trump's favorability amongst Democrats and Independents. Just for the sake of balance could you post the current favorability of Hillary amongst Republicans and Independents? The most recent survey I saw was July and it was already negative then, which obviously doesn't mean much, same as your poll. Thanks in advance.

A rather premature interjection.

Sounds more like you might need a research assistant or someone you can assign basic work projects to because Mr. Lannarebirth I'm not your guy.

The salient point is that 25% of Republicans say they can't vote for Trump under any circumstances. These are Republicans speaking about Trump for nomination or for the general election. That becomes prohibitive sooner or later in one way or another. Within the Republican party itself.

If you can move yourself to present or to discover data that says the same among Democrats in respect of HR Clinton it might support your case. Otherwise, to declare Trump the winner against Clinton in the general if he gets the nomination hasn't any basis of data predicated on voter feedback.

The issue is what people in the Republican party say about Trump and their vote. In respect of Independent voters, if you might think there could be like or similar data about HR Clinton then put your research ass istant to work on it.

Trump after Iowa is btw beginning to go seriously off the deep end. HR Clinton is certainly not nor will she.

[lannarebirth]

 

 

Democratic leadership displaying the same hubris as the Republican leadership. Both parties trying to foist unelectable candidates on the voting public. It's all about match ups. If Hilary is the nominee and the Rep. establishment gets their wish for Cruz or Rubio, Hillary wins. If they don't get what they want and Trump survives the convention, Hillary loses.

Personally, I don't think Hillary will be the nominee despite the wishes of the Democratic hierarchy. If she isn't Sanders takes both Cruz or Rubio. Not sure about a Trump match up. That's just too surreal to contemplate as yet.

Anyhow, a pretty thoughtful piece from behind Republican party lines:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572?paginate=false

Better to ignore perceived hubris to instead focus on facts.

The past eight weeks Gallup has been doing ongoing polling of the electorate.

27% of Independent voters have an "unfavorable" view of Donald Trump.

25% of Republicans say they can't vote for Trump under any circumstances.

Republican suburban women can't recognise the Republican party Donald Trump is trying to gain control of.

Trump's Image Among Democrats, Independents Most Negative of Any GOP Candidate

JANUARY 14, 2016

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188177/trump-image-among-democrats-independents-negative-gop-candidate.aspx

GALLUP: TRUMP WOULD BE MOST UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE IN THEIR POLLING HISTORY

http://themoderatevoice.com/gallup-trump-would-be-most-unpopular-candidate-in-their-polling-history/

To say HR Clinton will not get the nomination also flies in the face of facts on the ground, i.e., reality. Anyone saying this would need to argue facts on the ground in the coming primary and caucus states will necessarily change after New Hampshire. The post fails in this respect. It is instead pronouncements and declaratory statements hanging in dense air.

Reading what one describes as a 'thoughtful' piece is not a credential. It isn't even an indication.

Thanks for posting Trump's favorability amongst Democrats and Independents. Just for the sake of balance could you post the current favorability of Hillary amongst Republicans and Independents? The most recent survey I saw was July and it was already negative then, which obviously doesn't mean much, same as your poll. Thanks in advance.

A rather premature interjection.

Sounds more like you might need a research assistant or someone you can assign basic work projects to because Mr. Lannarebirth I'm not your guy.

The salient point is that 25% of Republicans say they can't vote for Trump under any circumstances. These are Republicans speaking about Trump for nomination or for the general election. That becomes prohibitive sooner or later in one way or another. Within the Republican party itself.

If you can move yourself to present or to discover data that says the same among Democrats in respect of HR Clinton it might support your case. Otherwise, to declare Trump the winner against Clinton in the general if he gets the nomination hasn't any basis of data predicated on voter feedback.

The issue is what people in the Republican party say about Trump and their vote. In respect of Independent voters, if you might think there could be like or similar data about HR Clinton then put your research ass istant to work on it.

Trump after Iowa is btw beginning to go seriously off the deep end. HR Clinton is certainly not nor will she.

I'm not here to carry Trump's water for him. Can't really imagine any circumstance I would vote for him, except for maybe if Clinton were the opposition. Even then only under protest as a vote against the candidate I'm certain is both incompetent and corrupt. Hopefully neither of those candidacies will arise. If it should come to pass there is interesting polling that suggests it would not be smooth sailing for Hillary.

http://www.mercuryanalytics.com/hillary-clinton-vs-trump-a-tough-battle/

Sadly, Democrat establishment interests are too far entrenched to back the one candidate that could defeat all Republican comers. Which begs the question; whose interests do they serve?

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

 

Democratic leadership displaying the same hubris as the Republican leadership. Both parties trying to foist unelectable candidates on the voting public. It's all about match ups. If Hilary is the nominee and the Rep. establishment gets their wish for Cruz or Rubio, Hillary wins. If they don't get what they want and Trump survives the convention, Hillary loses.

Personally, I don't think Hillary will be the nominee despite the wishes of the Democratic hierarchy. If she isn't Sanders takes both Cruz or Rubio. Not sure about a Trump match up. That's just too surreal to contemplate as yet.

Anyhow, a pretty thoughtful piece from behind Republican party lines:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572?paginate=false

Better to ignore perceived hubris to instead focus on facts.

The past eight weeks Gallup has been doing ongoing polling of the electorate.

27% of Independent voters have an "unfavorable" view of Donald Trump.

25% of Republicans say they can't vote for Trump under any circumstances.

Republican suburban women can't recognise the Republican party Donald Trump is trying to gain control of.

Trump's Image Among Democrats, Independents Most Negative of Any GOP Candidate

JANUARY 14, 2016

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/188177/trump-image-among-democrats-independents-negative-gop-candidate.aspx

GALLUP: TRUMP WOULD BE MOST UNPOPULAR CANDIDATE IN THEIR POLLING HISTORY

http://themoderatevoice.com/gallup-trump-would-be-most-unpopular-candidate-in-their-polling-history/

To say HR Clinton will not get the nomination also flies in the face of facts on the ground, i.e., reality. Anyone saying this would need to argue facts on the ground in the coming primary and caucus states will necessarily change after New Hampshire. The post fails in this respect. It is instead pronouncements and declaratory statements hanging in dense air.

Reading what one describes as a 'thoughtful' piece is not a credential. It isn't even an indication.

Thanks for posting Trump's favorability amongst Democrats and Independents. Just for the sake of balance could you post the current favorability of Hillary amongst Republicans and Independents? The most recent survey I saw was July and it was already negative then, which obviously doesn't mean much, same as your poll. Thanks in advance.

Trump, Cruz and any Republican would make a good president to lead the United States of Zombies not my United States of America. Republicans have done enough damage trying to neutralize Obama. They care nothing about governance. They are responsible for the decline of America. No way these fools get hold of the reins again. And this time We The People have learned to remain engaged and vote them out of the House and Senate. Edited February 3, 2016 by Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere

[Publicus]

 

I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw at this early juncture, but for Clinton it seems to be a wake-up call that she is not a shoe-in, and probably deservedly widely disdained as well. For Trump, it should be a wake-up call that voters may not long be dazzled by policy-weak, self-aggrandizing, media-manipulating, blowhard megalomaniacs.

Clinton has never said or claimed to be a shoe-in. She'd been declared to be prohibitive frontrunner by MSM, political pundits across the political spectrum and their lieges, oddsmakers etc.

One fails when one tries to say HR Clinton expected a cake walk to the presidency in the election of November 8th or to the nomination at the D party's quadrennial national convention in August.

Republicans and other rightwhingers hate her guts, as do about a third of Independent voters who anyway lean Republican. That's about 44% of voters which is nowhere near enough. (McCain in 2008 got 46% and he got blown away; wiped out.)

Clinton is raising big bucks and working hard because she is well aware this will be a catfight to the end. One could say a knife fight. Reality is another word.

The Citizens United decision by scotus is a major factor.

[lannarebirth]

 

I'm not sure what conclusions we can draw at this early juncture, but for Clinton it seems to be a wake-up call that she is not a shoe-in, and probably deservedly widely disdained as well. For Trump, it should be a wake-up call that voters may not long be dazzled by policy-weak, self-aggrandizing, media-manipulating, blowhard megalomaniacs.

Clinton has never said or claimed to be a shoe-in. She'd been declared to be prohibitive frontrunner by MSM, political pundits across the political spectrum and their lieges, oddsmakers etc.

One fails when one tries to say HR Clinton expected a cake walk to the presidency in the election of November 8th or to the nomination at the D party's quadrennial national convention in August.

Republicans and other rightwhingers hate her guts, as do about a third of Independent voters who anyway lean Republican. That's about 44% of voters which is nowhere near enough. (McCain in 2008 got 46% and he got blown away; wiped out.)

Clinton is raising big bucks and working hard because she is well aware this will be a catfight to the end. One could say a knife fight. Reality is another word.

The Citizens United decision by scotus is a major factor.

How is Citizens United a factor if her opponent refuses to avail himself of the corrupting, influence purchasing money Citizens United allows for? If its a factor its because she's grabbing it with both hands to defeat a rival that is breathing down her neck with over 3 Million individual contributions averaging $27 each. She's not only America's worst enemy but her own worst enemy as well.

[tonbridgebrit]

 

Go on, BERNIE, do it, go and beat Hillary Clinton for the leadership of your party. Go and become the leader of your nation.

Hillary Clinton, America must not forget that you backed the Bush invasion of Iraq back in 2003. See, Americans go on and on about how they don't like Bush, and how the Iraq war was not a good thing. Hillary does have support, and yet, Hillary backed the Iraq invasion. Hillary Clinton, if George Bush was a war monger, well, in that case, so are YOU, Hillary Clinton.

Lots of people backed it.

Because they were lied to about WMD's.

I'm sure the resident Clinton mouthpiece will be along shortly to spin this his way but this is a kick in the teeth for the Clinton Dynasty. On to NH where she probably doesn't even come close to a dead heat.

ABC...Anyone But Clinton.

 

Any Republican against Clinton in November loses.

That equals ARAgCINL.

And it's the sound the Republican party is making coming out of I-o-way and going into the Granite State up further north and over there on the big ocean. A stone's throw from Boston it is.

Not anywhere near enough "courageous conservatives" in NH of the kind Cruz likes. The bulk of Republicans up there are nutcase enough to swarm for Trump.

Mainstream Republicans in NH who are also mainstream in their religion are scattered among the candidates of their own kind, namely Kasich, Bush, Christie ---Rubio somewhat so far.

Rubio has truly bizarro religious views and affiliations, which is what brought him forward in Iowa which itself has a huge number of Republican rightwing religious nutcases. Rubio certainly didn't do any campaigning of consequence in Iowa. He instead promoted very quietly his tin foil church history of religious belief and worship.

Rotsa ruck with this crew.

Publicus, you don't like the Republicans, BUT you're cheering on Hillary Clinton ?

I'm trying to say that if you reckon George Bush was a war monger, then, you've got to accept that Hillary Clinton is just as much a war monger as George Bush.

See, you hate Bush, but you go on and cheer Hillary Clinton ?? How about we all get behind Bernie Sanders instead of supporting Hillary ? Surely, peace is better than war ? Bernie IS a man of peace, Bernie was NOT one of those who backed and supported the invasion of Iraq.

(If John McCain was younger, there's no way you would support McCain being POTUS wold you ?? )

[tonbridgebrit]

S. Carolina will be Bernie's next big test. N. Hampshire should be a walk in the park for him but I'll bet he campaigns there the same as Iowa. Actually he needs to blow Hillary out of the park there to make an unforgettable showing. Most people here have already said most of what needs to be said about the neocon/neoliberal tool of Wall street criminals and banksters, Hillary. Her sudden moves to the left mean absolutely nothing, just a ploy. He will have to capture more of the minority vote because most don't know about his years of activism for minorities. Perhaps now the lame stream corporate media will have to pay attention although I expect most will be at least an attempt a negative. Like many have said, Trump will "blown out" from all the hot wind he spews. People do have to pay attention to Cruz, very, very dangerous to America and Cruz who is perhaps 2nd most dangerous. They said for absolutely everything that America shouldn't stand for. A little bit about Hillary and how she will get along with Republicans, which really shouldn't be a problem, after all she is just another Manchurian candidate: http://www.opednews.com/populum/printer_friendly.php?content=a&id=199162

I really do hope that Bernie will "blow Hillary out of the park" at N.Hampshire.

And indeed, I myself do reckon that Hillary is just another front for the neocons and Wall Street boys. She's a Republican war monger dressed up as a Democrat. That's what makes her so dangerous. If Hillary was a man and had the same policies, well, all of us would know what Hillary is actually about. But Hillary is a woman, she's flying the Democrat flag, she's able to hide the issue of herself being a neocon war-monger.