is it really possible that Donald trump could be president????? [Part 2]

[claig]

From now on the race becomes winner take all. If Trump wins Florida on March 15, it is probably all over.

'The Republican Party now has 14 days to stop Trump'

www.vox.com/2016/3/2/11144812/super-tuesday-results-donald-trump-wins

Lineyborn, you may be right. We will have to wait and see what happens.

Bill O'Reilly on Fox says that if he were Hillary, he would refuse to debate with Trump in order to avoid the Trump onslaught, but a Democrat strategist said that Hillary wouldn't be able to avoid it and she will have to face Trump.

claig people might have to hold their noses when voting for HRC, but they will do so if she can persuade them that the alternative is a madman with a finger on the nuclear button.

I completely accept that about a third of republican primary voters would vote Trump even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue or swore blind that he intended to irradiate Mexico with his big red button on the grounds that Mexicans are all rapists and drug dealers.

But a third of republican primary voters probably equals less than 10% of the total electorate.

'but they will do so if she can persuade them that the alternative is a madman with a finger on the nuclear button.'

Yes, but Trump was against the Iraq War, against what Hillary did in Libya and Syria, is for doing a deal with Putin, was for leaving Saddam and Gaddafi in place, against Mid East wars and Blairite "humanitarian" intervnetions in the world, he is for rebuilding American infrastructure and business, so he will portary her as "bought and paid for" by Wall Street and in favour of more neo-con wars, so she will have a hard time portraying him as a madman who wants to start a nuclear war.

"Is Hillary Clinton a neoconservative hawk? What Iraq and Libya decisions tell us about her foreign policy

Hillary got Iraq vote wrong, and Libya and Syria too. If she were setting the policies, what would they look like?
...
The last 14 years have seen America completely lose track of what its own core ideological strengths are. If “they hate us for our freedoms,” then fine, we’ll get rid of them. That’s been our response in a nutshell. We’ve been taken so far out of touch with our own values that it might seem like a pipe dream to turn the tables on ISIS and exploit their contradictions. But that’s exactly what we need to do. And nothing in Hillary Clinton’s record shows any capacity for engaging ISIS on those terms.

To the contrary, Clinton’s just like Bush and the neocons in fighting the last century’s wars. She’s much smarter about it, in theory at least. But we’re in a whole different ballgame now, and none of our foreign policy elites seem to have a clue about that, despite a growing chorus of experts trying to point to a different way."

www.salon.com/2015/12/26/is_hillary_clinton_a_neoconservative_hawk_what_iraq_and_libya_decisions_tell_us_about_her_foreign_policy/

Trump is going to change everything which is why all of the world elite's think tanks and whizzkids are so scared of him winning. He will end all the neo-con wars and make America great again by ending their global governance plans. Their dreams are collapsing around them which is why they are begging the Republican elite to stop Trump.

He wasn't against the Iraq war... we only have his word for it, and a clip supporting it soon after it started.
He became against it, as soon as it was convenient. And because there was not oil to be gained from either intervention (for the oil companies he invests in...).

'He became against it, as soon as it was convenient.'

But did Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham and Hillary Benn go against it?

Trump is different to all of them. That is why the world's political class is so petrified that he will win.

RealClearPolitics has polls for umpteen head2head scenarios - some v unlikely - in the Presidential elections.
They clearly show what an electoral disaster Trump is for the Republicans:
Kasich, Cruz, or even Rubio beats her handily.

No wonder they are so furious - she is very beatable

In contrast, Sanders thrashes Trump, Kasich, Cruz, Rubio.

Interestingly, the only Republican candidate against whom Hillary might do better is the bizarre Carson - I suspect that is because of African Americans voters preferring Carson.

preferring Carson to Sanders, I mean.

Carson has been liked by everyone. I thought it was telling when Trump held his hand out to him during the earlier primaries while the others ignored him. Trumps big mistake was to have Chrsitie as his sidekick. He should have gone with Carson.

Iirc, on the latest and national polls both democrat candidates can beat any republican candidate.
Of course it's a long game and things could easily change, but it looks like the Republicans are messing up this election quite badly.

Theoretical "head to head" polls are rather meaningless at this stage, they don't have good predictive value.

What should be more concerning for Trump are his very high "unfavourability" ratings particularly among independents but also among some groups of republicans. HRC is not a popular politician by any means, but she doesn't come close to Trump in this respect. And one of the reasons she is unpopular with independents and some groups of liberals is that she has a reputation for being a closet republican, which may explain why some mainstream republicans are now making noises about supporting Clinton.

which may explain why some mainstream republicans are now making noises about supporting Clinton.
Or because their current candidates are so out there that even Clinton seems better. I can understand that.

If Carson is popular ouside a padded cell, then the religious nutter vote is much larger than I realised.

He claims:

• The Old Testament Joseph built the pyramids in Egypt to store food for the 7-year famine
• homosexuality is a choice
• evolution is an idea encouraged by the devil
• Obamacare is “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.”

If a politician can be taken seriously after spouting such gibberish, then many voters must have lost their capacity to be shocked - or to engage their brains.
Yes, Republicans really are "Guns, God, Gibberish"

Unfortunately the lunatic fringe have spread far outside the asylum and may be taking over the damn country

Hillary is very ILliberal, except that she is a feminist - in those aspects that benefit wealthier women.
She a neoliberal, who pushed welfare cuts by viciously demonising low-income women: e.g.
Salon

She pushed policies that incarcerated nearly a million African-American men & boys.
She opposed same sex marriage for years and only recently caved into grudging acceptance, following opinion polls.

Bill Clinton (and she supports this) sided with the Republicans and signed the Repeal of Glass-Steagall - the main cause of the financial crisis.

In foreign affairs, she is a neocon, who wages ruthless bloody - and incompetent - wars for profit & influence, looting for Wall St.

Her natural place in politics should be on the right wing of a conservative party

• but the GOP turned into a party of fascism and religious mania.

"Reagan invented the idea of the welfare queen. But it was the Clintons who actually took welfare away"
“For every 100 families with children that are living in poverty, 68 were able to access cash assistance before Bill Clinton’s welfare reform. By 2013, that number had fallen to 26”
The Clintons have savaged the poor, especially African Americans, who still vote loyally for them.
Shows how kind words can hide evil deeds.
At least Trump is openly evil, so people know the kind of bastard they are voting for.

Actually I do believe Obamacare is dreadful for America. We have zero coverage for any service linked to our sons autism. The developmental pediatrician is $900 per visit. Occupational and speech therapy are not covered. That is $120 per 45min session for anything outside of school. DS has eating issues. The specialist helping us is $325 per session. How the heck a family with an income of less than $200k a year in my area can afford the care is beyond me. Before Obamacare came in all these sessions would have been a $30 copay.

I know very little about the inns and outs of Obamacare, and even less about your personal health coverage, but analyses seem to show that there has been a marked decrease in the number of uninsured, particularly in states that have expanded Medicaid. www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/proportion-of-americans-without-health-insurance-dropped-in-2014/2015/09/16/60915d4c-5be5-11e5-9757-e49273f05f65_story.html

Obamacare feels like patchwork for the American system of private insurance. And what was possible given the limitations and resistance to a national health service more similar to those in Europe. Particularly with an antagonistic congress.

Uninsured doesn't mean anything. Just because you have insurance doesn't mean your insurance covers your treatment even if prescribed by a doctor. DH and I are involved with a national children's charity called Boys and Girls Club of America. They are doing what they can still to fill the gaps. What they are finding is shocking and it's affecting many more middle class families not covered by Medicaid. Obamacare has resulted in many more children not getting behavioral healthcare because behavioral health isn't medical so its not covered by the same policies that cover medical health.

We have what is considered 'Cadillac' coverage which means we pay a tax. Our premium is over $2k a month (both employee and employer portions) and the first $10k of behavioral healthcare is on us with 50% of costs covered after that. My employer offers a family plan for $1200 a month and the first $12k is on you with 75% covered after that.

People see right through Obamacare and are not happy. It sounds a lot to make $200k a year as a household but here in the NY area that is pretty average and isn't so much if you consider most people have gone to expensive schools for college plus completed a masters program. I have people working for me paying $2500 a month in student loans on an income of $80k a year.

Obamacare has helped many of the most vulnerable and lower income who were previously unable to obtain insurance, e.g. those with pre-existing conditions whom insurance companies used to refuse.

Not surprising that adding insurance for many millions more people was going to cost more. Since those previously excluded couldn't pay, clearly most of the extra money would be paid by those on above average incomes.
Adding universal behavioural healthcare, of the type you want, would have been ideal, but the increase in numbers would require even higher funding.

The ideal would have been comprehensive single payer, funded by income tax, but that was never going to be passed by Congress.
Would you have preferred that ?
Or do you mean the poor and those with chronic conditions should just have continued uninsured and often untreated, while the wealthy kept their "Cadillac" system ?

Being uninsured means a lot if you can't afford to pay for essential treatment, or if your insurance is cut off after a cancer diagnosis, as some companies used to do.
Being uninsured means a lot if you have to sell your house to fund treatment for a family member. If you became one of the many forced into bankruptcy by medical bills.

I remember an article by someone a few years ago in the US who needed cancer treatment, but wasn't insured because of being previously on a company scheme and then suddenly being made redundant: the first thing the hospital did was to put a lien on their house, in case the money ran out.

Obamacare has helped many of the most vulnerable and lower income who were previously unable to obtain insurance, e.g. those with pre-existing conditions whom insurance companies used to refuse.

I know several people in this category; one is a close family member.

The Republicans have lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential elections - and that was with moderately sane and centerist candidates. All of the demographics suggest the US is becoming more liberal not less, This is why the nutcases (Teabaggers, Trumpeters and Palinistas) are so angry.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, Hillary wins.

want2be even the best, most comprehensive healthcare systems in the world often have limited services for "behavioural" issues. We live in France, which rates highly on most healthcare comparisons and which has a social insurance system. My daughter has been seeing a psychologist ... not covered by the state system, and my gold-plated top-up insurance (which will happily pay out for a €500 pair of varifocal lenses for my husband) will only cover the first €125-worth of consultations.

This is not a fault with Obamacare, but with insurance-based systems generally. It's an argument for an NHS if anything. ;)

i think you will find that people who were previously uninsured, or unable to insure a pre-existing condition, will have a completely different view of obamacare.

Again, not being an expert on this, but my impression from its implementation is that most of the problems with Obama care are because of GOP and general resistance to an NHS system.
For example: m.huffpost.com/us/entry/congress-passed-bill-to-change-obamacare_us_5612af43e4b076812702b75f
I have to say that I'm very impressed that something like Obama care was ever implemented.
Now, maybe people could convince the GOP majorities to improve coverage?