OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN] . . . As for incandescent vs LED, that’s another horrible example. W/ incandescent, each bulb is a few cents while LED, each bulb is a couple of $. How long would you have to use those incandescent before it break event w/ LED? My outdoor light gets used maybe 1 hour a month on average. How long do you think it’ll take to break even? There nothing wrong w/ LED, but not everyone can afford it and it’s not the right solution in all situation.[/quote]Agree with this. I bought a bunch of incandescent bulbs on clearance before they wouldn’t be sold anymore (both indoor and outdoor). I’m glad I did, especially the (more expensive) outdoor floodlight bulbs which are controlled by sensors and indoor Halogen bulbs. The price I got them for was about 1/10th of the price of new LED bulbs. I don’t use that much lighting, usually only have lights on in one room at a time and am usually the household who conserved gas and electricity the most compared to my neighbors, according to SDG&E.

For my needs, some LED bulbs cost $8 each (or more).

The amount of savings in using LED bulbs (if any) over incandescent bulbs is entirely dependent on how much power the household or business uses.

[FlyerInHi]

AC example is actually excellent. Builders bear of cost of building, and all they can sell for is market price. The manufacture cost is probably a couple hundred dollar difference.

The SEER difference is an upsell point for manufacturers/resellers to get higher margins. Like plain white appliances vs. stainless steel.

That certainly proves that efficiency mandates work.

I just saw a 10 pack 60W equivalent LED for about $12 at Costco. You have to be stupid to buy incandescent, unless you need to achieve a very specific look. BTW the law is not to ban incandescent bulbs but to set gradual efficiency improvements. It’s all about phasing in new standards. if that’s not reasonable, then what is?

[poorgradstudent]

I have a feeling the March 15th primaries will end Bernie’s campaign. Although the polls were badly wrong in Michigan, March 15th has a bunch of big states Hillary should carry by decent margins. Even if there’s one surprise (Ohio?) she’s likely to build a pledged delegate lead big enough the narrative will more or less call her the winner.

Still, after that it’s a sparse calendar with a month of mostly Western states that Bernie should do OK in. I could see him hanging on until New York in mid-April where Hillary will look to throw the Knock-out punch.

[svelte]

[quote=poorgradstudent]
Still, after that it’s a sparse calendar with a month of mostly Western states that Bernie should do OK in. I could see him hanging on until New York in mid-April where Hillary will look to throw the Knock-out punch.[/quote]

I think the Dems want him to hang on. Otherwise there is nothing to watch and all the attention will go to the Republicans. But Hillary will be the nominee.

But on the Republican side I still can’t imagine a scenario my brain is comfortable with.
– Trump? It just boggles my mind that he would be the candidate.
– Cruz or Rubio? Can’t see how they would get more delegates than Trump at this point
– Cruz/Rubio ticket? Only combo that could beat Trump, methinks, but I’m not sure I see them teaming either
– Romney? Come on. Far fetched. And I think there would be pandemonium in the party as Trump supporters turned all the tables in the room over.

Whatever happens on the Republican side it is going to be surreal.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=svelte]
– Romney? Come on. Far fetched. And I think there would be pandemonium in the party as Trump supporters turned all the tables in the room over.

Whatever happens on the Republican side it is going to be surreal.[/quote]

Will there even been Trump supporters in Cleveland? The delegates Trump wins are bound to vote the him the first round only. They’re not his supporters.

It will be fun to watch.

I think that as of now, the Republican establishment is hoping for Cruz or Kasich. Rubio’s campaign has disintegrated that will likely lose Florida.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=svelte]
But on the Republican side I still can’t imagine a scenario my brain is comfortable with.
– Trump? It just boggles my mind that he would be the candidate.
– Cruz or Rubio? Can’t see how they would get more delegates than Trump at this point
– Cruz/Rubio ticket? Only combo that could beat Trump, methinks, but I’m not sure I see them teaming either
– Romney? Come on. Far fetched. And I think there would be pandemonium in the party as Trump supporters turned all the tables in the room over.

Whatever happens on the Republican side it is going to be surreal.[/quote]

At this point only Trump has a legitimately clear shot at getting enough delegates to walk into the convention as the nominee. Cruz mathematically could still swing it, but he’d need to start building momentum in states that aren’t necessarily heavy in his core supporters.

So really, there are two likely outcomes: Trump is the nominee before the convention, or there is a contested convention where all Hell could break loose.

[paramount]

The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so…

[spdrun]

But Hillary will be the nominee.

Unless the rumors about her ill health are true, of course, and that cough is really lung cancer. Maybe Sanders donors should chip in and send her packs of unfiltered Camels.

[zk]

[quote=paramount]The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so…[/quote]

So far all the violence I’ve seen has been perpetrated by Trump supporters, not protesters. Why would the jails be full of protesters?

[joec]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=poorgradstudent]
I think Rubio’s biggest issue is the Big Money donors aren’t too impressed with him. I mean, if I was a completely loaded Republican, at this point I’d be tempted to just let Trump or Cruz win the nomination and sink my cash into competitive Senate races. Or maybe even cross my fingers for a brokered convention, where backroom influence goes a long ways.[/quote]

Rubio’s problem is that he has no campaign. He never built one. He’s lazy. He’s always been lazy. He gives a speech. If people like it, he gives it over and over again. Even if he had a campaign, he has nothing to run on. He’s a good looking, young, Hispanic republican. Full stop. That’s what he has. He would have an unlimited supply of insider money if he had anything beyond those attributes, and a campaign. He’s history. His senate seat is up next January. We may never hear from him again.

It’s likely the big republican money will go into the senate races and house races. Either Trump or Cruz will be a huge drag on down-ticket races. A Trump-Cruz ticket (or vice-versa) might cause Republicans to lose both the Senate and the House. It’s unlikely to happen. Cruz hates Trump. Everyone hates Cruz (that’s the one universal truth of this election cycle.) If the nominee comes out of a brokered convention, it’s unlikely to be either of them. My money is on Paul Ryan. He’s owed, big time. And down-ticket races will suffer even more.[/quote]

I agree completely. Rubio is done IMO. He got elected to 1 term I think and has been a lazy senator, and from all reports, the laziest never showing up and he had a singular goal of trying to reach the presidency after his Senate mid-step…(according to his campaign manager I think?)

After he loses Florida sadly, I hope and think he will be done with Politics since he hasn’t done a thing and only wanted to be POTUS 6 years ago…

Good riddance I say….

[joec]

[quote=poorgradstudent]I have a feeling the March 15th primaries will end Bernie’s campaign. Although the polls were badly wrong in Michigan, March 15th has a bunch of big states Hillary should carry by decent margins. Even if there’s one surprise (Ohio?) she’s likely to build a pledged delegate lead big enough the narrative will more or less call her the winner.

Still, after that it’s a sparse calendar with a month of mostly Western states that Bernie should do OK in. I could see him hanging on until New York in mid-April where Hillary will look to throw the Knock-out punch.[/quote]

I disagree with this completely. Are you a Hillary supporter? Campaigns primarily stop when they run out of money. Bernie, after winning Michigan did a fund raising event in 10 seconds in a hastily called press conference and just told people to donate to the campaign. He asked people to donate a few bucks and in a week, he has 10-20 million just like that. These are small (< $30) donations. http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-just-had-his-best-fundraising-month-ever/

I couldn't find funding after Michigan, but expect a solid fundraising after that win.

I even saw an article where Clinton has a higher chance of running out of money since she actually has to go to some fancy dinner with a few donors paying lots of cash. There are smaller crowds with much less energy or passion at her events when 5-10k (HUUUUUGE) crowds show up for Bernie. A part of this is because a lot of people actually don't even like her that much or want her, but are stuck with her.

LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-na-clinton-money-20160218-story.html

Bernie will take this as far as the convention if the funding is there which I think will be.

Also, the electoral map is MUCH MUCH more favorable after March 15th to Bernie (the african American south is sorta done) so he has even more reasons to stay.

Also, if Clinton runs into issues or gets indicted, her support and electability and superdelegates may change their vote since she may also have a chance to lose the election.

Trump also toned down his rhetoric in the last debate which will make him a tougher opponent if he comes off as saying he said what he did to win the nomination. You even have Carson endorsing him now. For all the idiocy that is Trump (I'm not a supporter), he is still a pretty smart business man and generally a success taking advantage of every advantage so Hillary and Bill, especially will have trouble dealing with him IMO.

Also, every poll I have seen has Sanders topping every Republican challenger. Clinton had some polls where should would actually lose. On the ones she might win, she also wins by a smaller margin than Bernie against any Republican.

In short, Hillary is the candidate the establishment dems are "stuck" with. The dems will always vote for dems so there will always be support and people will fall in line (that's that 70% Hillary support), but Hillary 'flip-flopping' Clinton is a pretty weak candidate that the majority of people find distrustful and in the pocket of the wealthy elite.

Full disclosure, yes, I would like Hillary to lose...badly...

[paramount]

[quote=zk][quote=paramount]The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so…[/quote]

So far all the violence I’ve seen has been perpetrated by Trump supporters, not protesters. Why would the jails be full of protesters?[/quote]

Oh, that’s just because you were watching CNN.

The socialist progressives and their victims were the ones that were actually breaking the law.

[zk]

[quote=paramount][quote=zk][quote=paramount]The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so…[/quote]

So far all the violence I’ve seen has been perpetrated by Trump supporters, not protesters. Why would the jails be full of protesters?[/quote]

Oh, that’s just because you were watching CNN.

[/quote]

Not sure what difference it makes what channel on which I saw video of Trump supporters assaulting Trump protesters without provocation (unless you call asserting their first amendment rights provocation). Unless you’re saying CNN faked the videos. Are you saying CNN faked the videos?

If you have links to videos that clearly show Trump protesters instigating violence without provocation, by all means show them to us. Show us links to videos that show enough Trump protesters initiating violence that they would fill the Chicago jails.

[quote=paramount]
The socialist progressives and their victims were the ones that were actually breaking the law.[/quote]

First off, not all Trump protesters are “socialist progressives.” Most of them are probably protesting Trump because he’s a racist, misogynist fool.

Second, what laws were the protesters breaking?

And who are “their victims” and what laws were they breaking?

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=joec]Campaigns primarily stop when they run out of money.[/quote]

While running out of money is a problem for a candidate, in the nomination race if your opponent gets over 50% of the delegates pledged to her (or him) it’s game over no matter how much money you have.

[Coronita]

[quote=paramount][quote=zk][quote=paramount]The Chicago jails should be a full house tonight with disruptive Trump protesters.

At least I would hope so…[/quote]

So far all the violence I’ve seen has been perpetrated by Trump supporters, not protesters. Why would the jails be full of protesters?[/quote]

Oh, that’s just because you were watching CNN.

The socialist progressives and their victims were the ones that were actually breaking the law.[/quote]

Paramount. You really have lost it. I know you have this anti-extreme liberal thing. And to some extent, so did I wrto some of the ridiculous policies. But, for a minute, can you briefly take off the anger and hate that you have against apparently “liberals” and just think rationally for a second?

Look at this….

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html

[quote]
Donald Trump took a step toward supporting violent action by a supporter Sunday, saying that he had instructed his attorneys to look into paying the legal bills for a man charged last week with punching a protester who was being led out of a rally.

The statement of potential financial support, which Trump made on NBC’s “Meet the Press” added a new and remarkable dimension to his presidential campaign’s flirtation with violence and again drew condemnation from a wide spectrum of politicians.
[/quote]

Let’s put this in perspective for you… Let’s say someone found out who you are and your anti Obama stance. And let’s say someone goes to your house and kicks the living shit out of your kids or your wife, simply because he didn’t like your anti-obama stance, and he wanted you to STFU. And your wife is bleeding, your kids are roughed up…And they caught the guy who did it.. Obama saw the news in the headlines and says he’d offer to pay the perpetrator for his legal expenses for kicking the shit out of your wife and your kids, because Obama felt you were threatening (when in reality, he didn’t just like what you were saying about him and was glad your family got roughed up, since that would teach you a lesson)…. That would be OK, right?

This isn’t about left or right. This guy is insane. He’s a bully. Probably borderline mentally unstable. You might like him, because you feel the only way you’ll get “even” with whatever some imaginary adversary you have that apparently pisses you off. But stop and think about this. Is this really some guy you want to have his hands on a nuclear button? Is this the sort of behavior you want your kids growing up to learn? That if in life you can’t get your way, that’s it’s ok to find a bunch of people to rough up other people? Think. The next 4 years and probably 8, you’re going to have to live with that choice you make not just for yourself but for your kids.

People keep saying “it’s no big deal”. How much damage can a president do? Let me ask you this, how do you explain this sort of viewpoint to your kids, if he is president? What sort of message does it send to our younger generation? Are white people really that mad in that they really don’t want anyone that isn’t white to be in this country?

Trump is making Obama look like prince. And you know me, I never liked Obama, ever.

Trump isn’t a republican, he’s neither conservative nor is he a moderate. He’s just criminally insane and thinks rules, laws, human decency doesn’t apply to him.

[Author]

Posts