US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[Ithekro]

Maybe I am blind or not looking deeply enough, but I am seeming no acceptable answer for the question of viable president elect this year. None of the third party choices have enough support to even be mentioned in the media and the two parties frontline people seem like they will doom the country one way or the other. Yet one of them will be President (unless something odd happens before the Primaries. That has happened before. Someone comes out of left field and takes a nomination because they seem entirely more reasonable than what is being presented up to that point).

I will vote, and I don't even need my vote to count...but I'm not seeing a good choice....at all. Not even a lesser evil.

[Xellos-_^]

as expect Clinton is leading Fl and NC but she is also leading in OH by huge margins.

If OH result holds up sander is finish no matter what happen in IL and MO.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I think I got the Democrat electorate figured out; Basically there are a lot of Conservatives who wanted to vote Republican but could not due to being faced with hostility, and most of them got absorbed by the Democratic party. This means Clinton is extremely attractive to them, because she is basically a moderate Republican and someone they wanted to vote for all along.

Bernie is a true Left Candidate. But he was never going to get the majority of support when he only appeal to those who actually lean Left. The Democrats as a party is basically a centralist organisation now.

[Xellos-_^]

you are not entirely wrong

When the RINO's were purge form the Republican party. Most of them ended up with the Democrats.

other aspect is that Democrats (older gen) are still suffering form PTSD form McGovern and Dukakis losses.

Hillary wins OH and leads in IL and MO. Sanders is officially done. He can still go on and campaign but there is no chance at this point he can win the nomination, Hillary wouldn't even need the super-delegates at this point.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I think I got the Democrat electorate figured out; Basically there are a lot of Conservatives who wanted to vote Republican but could not due to being faced with hostility, and most of them got absorbed by the Democratic party. This means Clinton is extremely attractive to them, because she is basically a moderate Republican and someone they wanted to vote for all along.

Bernie is a true Left Candidate. But he was never going to get the majority of support when he only appeal to those who actually lean Left. The Democrats as a party is basically a centralist organisation now.

There are two right wing parties in the US. One pretends to care more than the other.

[GreyZone]

You can see how a political faction leans based on the media they control.


"Right Wing" media tend to defame people by painting the target as incompetent, undignified and unpatriotic.

"Left Wing" media however tend to defame people by painting the target as intolerant, "facist" and projecting the target as all sorts of "-ist" and "-phobe".


I have seen both of these in the current presidential race and the left leaning one has not been "pro-Sanders and anti-Clinton", so I assume that the "Left Wing" media are on the side of the Democrats in general.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Maybe I am blind or not looking deeply enough, but I am seeming no acceptable answer for the question of viable president elect this year. None of the third party choices have enough support to even be mentioned in the media and the two parties frontline people seem like they will doom the country one way or the other. Yet one of them will be President (unless something odd happens before the Primaries. That has happened before. Someone comes out of left field and takes a nomination because they seem entirely more reasonable than what is being presented up to that point).

I will vote, and I don't even need my vote to count...but I'm not seeing a good choice....at all. Not even a lesser evil.

Why so glum on Hilary? Despite her being an insider.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Solace

There are two right wing parties in the US. One pretends to care more than the other.

Yup dems have been at least center since clinton.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

You can see how a political faction leans based on the media they control.


"Right Wing" media tend to defame people by painting the target as incompetent, undignified and unpatriotic.

"Left Wing" media however tend to defame people by painting the target as intolerant, "facist" and projecting the target as all sorts of "-ist" and "-phobe".


I have seen both of these in the current presidential race and the left leaning one has not been "pro-Sanders and anti-Clinton", so I assume that the "Left Wing" media are on the side of the Democrats in general.

I have only been looking at the newspapers and npr for coverage. The left media vs right media doesnt really apply. Its the green media as in money. Most pages and stories are on trump and his rallies. I think if the media REALLY wanted to be liberal then they would go on investigation after analysis of trumps past buisness dealings.

But its much easier to just cover the horserace.

[risingstar3110]

Yeah Bernie defeat in Ohio is simply devastated. With Florida is as expected. And Illinois + Missouri are essentially tied with only 1 or 2 points difference. Ohio is the only real game changer of the night and it went to Hillary's favour

Another stats which media unlikely to bring up, but is very damning. If today vote counts indicate anything of general election, then Republican just had a landslide victory over Democrats in two purple states of Ohio (1.1m to 2.0m) and Florida (1.7m vs 2.3 m). Like it was not even close

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

It certainly looks like Trump has this in the bag, and the only way he would lose the election is if the GOP backstabbed him out of his nomination.

And the way it is going, I don't think a contested Convention is happening. Trump is going to get his 50%, and if he doesn't get his coronation by the party there would be a real honest to goodness riot.

Clinton is likely going to lose the General the same way most Democrats lose the General; the candidate take the voters for granted and thus cause the voters to stay home. She just doesn't give any reason for anyone to WANT her for President over Trump. She just has an attitude problem.
It's like the old fashion job interview question: "Why do you think we should hire you for this job?"

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Another stats which media unlikely to bring up, but is very damning. If today vote counts indicate anything of general election, then Republican just had a landslide victory over Democrats in two purple states of Ohio (1.1m to 2.0m) and Florida (1.7m vs 2.3 m). Like it was not even close

According to Politifact's analysis of arch-center right pundit David Brook's claim, it doesn't matter.

The data pool is naturally too small to be meaningful, but we can strongly correlate trends of primary turnout directly with how hotly contested the primaries themselves are. The Republican Party is in the middle of a civil war, with GOP leaders seriously contemplating a contested convention and throwing the election, to preserve the party from Trump's hostile takeover. The Democratic Party is largely united behind Hillary Clinton, despite Sanders' remarkable from-the-left campaign.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Clinton is likely going to lose the General the same way most Democrats lose the General; the candidate take the voters for granted and thus cause the voters to stay home. She just doesn't give any reason for anyone to WANT her for President over Trump. She just has an attitude problem.

There are a lot of people in America who actually really like Hillary Clinton, despite whatever the internet thinks. It also depends on how badly Trump and his brownshirts scare minorities and women, and how the timing of when he will call Hillary Clinton a cunt on live TV works out. He may just do enough for Clinton to get 2008's rainbow coalition back together. 2008 was hope and change, 2016 will be about protecting the gains of the last eight years and, maybe, about our very survival as equal citizens of the United States.

I tend to think the Clinton Machine (tm) is overrated -- it is very powerful, but traditional, and Obama's stunning 21st century campaign machine destroyed it before -- but if she is able to borrow some of dat charisma between her husband and the Big O, she may partially compensate the enthusiasm gap.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

According to Politifact's analysis of arch-center right pundit David Brook's claim, it doesn't matter.

The data pool is naturally too small to be meaningful, but we can strongly correlate trends of primary turnout directly with how hotly contested the primaries themselves are. The Republican Party is in the middle of a civil war, with GOP leaders seriously contemplating a contested convention and throwing the election, to preserve the party from Trump's hostile takeover. The Democratic Party is largely united behind Hillary Clinton, despite Sanders' remarkable from-the-left campaign.

1/ It was a good article you linked to and yes it do show that primary turnout doesn't predict the election outcome. But if you notice, only for Democrat winning. Because as seen in every competitive primary election since 1976 with only exception of 2000 and by a minor margin. There was always higher portion of Democrat turned out during primary that Republican. Means that if by number, and Democrats turnout already lower than Republican right now, they are very likely to get even lower in general election.

2/ The only exception for that assumption is: unless the current Democrat primary is considered as not competitive, which I know the DNC just like you have been trying to sell this over. We won't even comparing to the GOP as they have a freak year. But fact is the gap between two candidatures in term of voters count in the 5 states today, with exception of Florida, was much smaller comparing to 2008 as in:

• Missouri (2008) 11000 > Missouri (2016) 1600
• Illinois (2008) 650,000 > Illinois (2016) 32,000
• NC (2008) 230,000 > NC (2016) 34,000
• Ohio (2008) 203,000 > Ohio (2016) 165,000
• Florida (2008) 300,000 < Florida (2016) 500,000

Note that with the exception of Florida, there are less total votes in all of the states, but they are all more competitive. So that dismiss the notion that competitiveness proportionally led to lower turnout. In fact the 2016 voter turnout was lower than 2008 even during Iowa and NH, back when Hillary also had a much bigger gap over Obama in national poll, so the national poll is not the issues

3/ So in summary, as it stands, there are only four possibilities:

1. there is less excitement in Democrat base than the Republican base(which is align with what happened in 2014 elections)
2. there is as much excitement in Democrat base comparing to Republican's, but votes suppression resulted in lower turn out (basically the DNC in bed with Hillary campaign to ensure the party loyalist votes will be more decisive)
3. There is as much excitement in Democrat base comparing to Republican's and there is no voter suppression, but voting in primary won't matter for the Democrat (because they think two candidates were too similar and it's not matter which one win)
4. combination of all three

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

1/ It was a good article you linked to and yes it do show that primary turnout doesn't predict the election outcome. But if you notice, only for Democrat winning. Because as seen in every competitive primary election since 1976 with only exception of 2000 and by a minor margin. There was always higher portion of Democrat turned out during primary that Republican. Means that if by number, and Democrats turnout already lower than Republican right now, they are very likely to get even lower in general election.

Your conclusion was not part of the analysis of many other sources that discuss the same question, so I can't say you're wrong, because I don't know. However, it is a hypothesis that has not been analyzed together with non-statistical factors (trans: what actually happened in all those elections), and you haven't given any reason why beyond enthusiasm. Given that, the "rebuttal," if it is called as such, comes from the Washington Post's analysis which challenges the enthusiasm-only hypothesis by including a very important factor you haven't considered, and therefore directly impacts your four-point possibilities:.

"GOP turnout isn’t necessarily all because of enthusiasm. Anxiety can motivate voters, too.

"Second, and more important, it is a mistake to attribute all of the increase in Republican primary and caucus turnout to enthusiasm. Political science research [here the Post links to a research paper from the academic database JSTOR] has shown that political participation can be motivated by “enthusiasm” but also “anxiety.”

"Some primary voters surely turned out because they want Trump, just as he contends. But many others seem to be voting to stop Trump.

The Post further supports its argument with polling results:

"A recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll found that whereas three-fourths of Democrats would be “satisfied” with either Clinton or Sanders as the party nominee, none of the Republican candidates is viewed so positively by GOP voters. Trump fares worst, with only half of Republicans saying they would be satisfied with him as nominee."

i.e. despite angry, angry reddit posts about Shillary, the Democrats are chill; the Republicans are in a civil war. #NeverTrump

Also, this --

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

unless the current Democrat primary is considered as not competitive, which I know the DNC just like you have been trying to sell this over

Is completely unnecessary. I don't exactly work for the DNC. Not to mention, the Democratic Party really is firmly behind Hillary Clinton. Yes, many leftist voters, especially youth, do not support Clinton, enough for Sanders to launch a creditable populist challenge. However, actual political figures -- Congresspeople, Senators, and Governors affiliated with the Democratic Party, overwhelmingly endorses Clinton, to a magnitude beyond her advantage over Obama in 2008 at the timing of the Iowa Caucus.

FiveThirtyEight included a brief analysis of this "Invisible Primary." It notes that, with Iowa as the key date, there are two types of "invisible primaries," the one where the party has already coalesced around a candidate, who goes on and win, and the clusterfuck that will see one candidate emerges with an advantage. The one exception to these two types is 2008, where Clinton had a strong advantage at Iowa but Obama gained enough momentum to close the gap (but, also unusually, not significantly exceed -- it was close).

Now, it's a predictive factor, more correlation than causation, and three months ago I may concede to a possible grassroots progressive revolution overturning past trends (though I would not have thought it likely). However, 2016's endorsement picture looks very much like the first type, Iowa was months ago, Sanders hasn't shown any gains, and I'm sorry to say, but Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama.

As to the popular vote, well the math analyses are all over the internet, and Clinton is leading by a historic 300+ delegates right now. By all signs, she is the presumptive nominee.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Your conclusion was not part of the analysis of many other sources that discuss the same question, so I can't say you're wrong, because I don't know. However, it is a hypothesis that has not been analyzed together with non-statistical factors (trans: what actually happened in all those elections), and you haven't given any reason why beyond enthusiasm. Given that, the "rebuttal," if it is called as such, comes from the Washington Post's analysis which challenges the enthusiasm-only hypothesis by including a very important factor you haven't considered, and therefore directly impacts your four-point possibilities:.

"GOP turnout isn’t necessarily all because of enthusiasm. Anxiety can motivate voters, too.

"Second, and more important, it is a mistake to attribute all of the increase in Republican primary and caucus turnout to enthusiasm. Political science research [here the Post links to a research paper from the academic database JSTOR] has shown that political participation can be motivated by “enthusiasm” but also “anxiety.”

"Some primary voters surely turned out because they want Trump, just as he contends. But many others seem to be voting to stop Trump.

The Post further supports its argument with polling results:

"A recent Washington Post-ABC News Poll found that whereas three-fourths of Democrats would be “satisfied” with either Clinton or Sanders as the party nominee, none of the Republican candidates is viewed so positively by GOP voters. Trump fares worst, with only half of Republicans saying they would be satisfied with him as nominee."

i.e. despite angry, angry reddit posts about Shillary, the Democrats are chill; the Republicans are in a civil war. #NeverTrump

As mentioned, that's why I tried to remove the whole GOP factor altogether (too much independent variables) by simply comparing the current campaign to 2008 Democrats campaign. Which was driven more by enthusiasm. In fact there is currently much more anxiety during this campaign than 2008 so clearly it didn't drive the turnout propotionally.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Also, this --

Is completely unnecessary. I don't exactly work for the DNC. Not to mention, the Democratic Party really is firmly behind Hillary Clinton. Yes, many leftist voters, especially youth, do not support Clinton, enough for Sanders to launch a creditable populist challenge. However, actual political figures -- Congresspeople, Senators, and Governors affiliated with the Democratic Party, overwhelmingly endorses Clinton, to a magnitude beyond her advantage over Obama in 2008 at the timing of the Iowa Caucus.

FiveThirtyEight included a brief analysis of this "Invisible Primary." It notes that, with Iowa as the key date, there are two types of "invisible primaries," the one where the party has already coalesced around a candidate, who goes on and win, and the clusterfuck that will see one candidate emerges with an advantage. The one exception to these two types is 2008, where Clinton had a strong advantage at Iowa but Obama gained enough momentum to close the gap (but, also unusually, not significantly exceed -- it was close).

Now, it's a predictive factor, more correlation than causation, and three months ago I may concede to a possible grassroots progressive revolution overturning past trends (though I would not have thought it likely). However, 2016's endorsement picture looks very much like the first type, Iowa was months ago, Sanders hasn't shown any gains, and I'm sorry to say, but Bernie Sanders is not Barack Obama.

As to the popular vote, well the math analyses are all over the internet, and Clinton is leading by a historic 300+ delegates right now. By all signs, she is the presumptive nominee.

Don't disagree with your points here, but I can't see how this would relate to and affect turnout. Unless we assume that: more party officials endorsing one candidature will lead to lower turn out for that candidates (hence overall turnout). Which won't make sense. Like I say this argument is only true if Hillary win by such large margin that people don't need to turn out because she was winning anyway (e,g, instead of winning by 60 points gap, she only win by 30). But this was only true in southern states.

Meanswhile on the 300 delegates leads. That is not huge unless was purposely painted otherwise. For example Bernie only need to win 57% of the remaining pledged delegates to win it from her (and it's all non-Southern states). Means even a 10% drop in turnout for Hillary for the remaining of her campaign could see her losing nomination. It's hers to lose, but it is still fairly tight.


Hence this very strong agenda being driven by both the party officials and media to push Bernie to drop out. Why? Because there is that decent chance that Hillary will slip and lose 10% of her supports. Or Bernie somehow gain 10% more supports. Or 5% of Hillary current support flip to Bernie. The chance of that happens is very real. Only sure way that it won't happen, is if Bernie drop out

[GreyZone]

Wow Missouri so close on both sides. 99% in and yet still no winner projection on either side. Though looks like Trump and Clinton will get it. But it's probably a more significant issue on the GOP side, due to the way delegates are being allocated.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

As mentioned, that's why I tried to remove the whole GOP factor altogether (too much independent variables) by simply comparing the current campaign to 2008 Democrats campaign. Which was driven more by enthusiasm. In fact there is currently much more anxiety during this campaign than 2008 so clearly it didn't drive the turnout propotionally.

Four points: The conclusion of the Washington Post article is that Democrats are by and large content with the two nominees. They don't feel like they MUST stop Sanders or Clinton. They're pretty fine with both. Why bother voting? 2008 was actually a bitter and close race, so many people came out as they felt their votes had impact. And yes, the Obama factor counts. But that's historic. You don't need 2008 numbers to win elections.

Second, this state of contented disinterest can and is expected to change in the general election. Clinton will play the fear card with Trump. She is already pivoting. She may even inspire -- and yes, she's capable of that, she was and is one of the most admired women in the world.

Third, with the party is full blown civil war, GOP voters are making record numbers in a contest for the party's identity. I know you wanted to remove the GOP factor, but with your argument that Democrats could lose the election because enthusiasm is lower, well, if hypothetically half the GOP would rather stay home than vote Trump, why would the Democrats need 2008 numbers to win? Remember that your original post on this is whether the Republicans "won a landslide" over the Democrats, or demonstrate likelihood to do so, by the virtue of the number of people voting in their respective primaries. The pundits didn't bring this up (much) because they've already talked about correlation between primary and general election turnout and said, nah, didn't think so. Too much going on.

Fourth, the trend you noted from the data is statistically insignificant due to the sample size. Now that doesn't stop people from hypothesizing and debating, but it raises a cautionary note on whether this is a "real" trend in the first place.

On the 300 leads. That is not huge unless was purposely painted otherwise. For example Bernie only need to win 57% of the remaining pledged delegates to win it from her (and it's all non-South). Means even a 10% drop in turnout for Hillary could see her losing nomination, showing it is still fairly tight even right now.

Hence this very strong agenda being driven by both the party officials and media to push Bernie to drop out. Why? Because there is that decent chance that Hillary will slip and lose 10% of her supports. Or Bernie somehow gain 10% more supports. Or 5% of Hillary current support flip to Bernie. The chance of that happens is very real. Only sure way that it won't happen, is if Bernie drop out

Primary forecasts -- I rely on FiveThirtyEight here, since they are the best in the business (they missed Michigan, like everybody else...and that's about it) -- suggest that Clinton holds strong leads in states like New York and California, delegate-rich states that will easily dwarf margins of victory gained in other states. Sanders will need Michigans all the way to the convention. Big Michigans. NY and Cali mandatory.

Statistically very, very unlikely barring a series of catastrophically faulty polling results or dramatically changed circumstances.

Sorry, unless a meteor hits Hillary tomorrow, she has a mental breakdown on live television, some crazy blows up another American skyscraper, or the "damn emails" actually stick, it's over.

[Ithekro]

Why don't I support Clinton? Too much negative history I think. Also my father has already been angry for the last seven to eight years and he'll be even worse with Hillary in charge. Because they went to high school together, and he didn't think too highly of her then either. Now he considers her a criminal that should hang. I don't want another four to eight years of an angry father, much less one that wants the candidate in prison now and would be calling for her impeachment and trail for high treason from January 20th, 2017 to whenever she leaves office.

He won't even call Obama the President now. Hillary will be even worse for my family. Its been a hate train for her since 1993 and retroactively since 1965 (He didn't figure out who she was until someone metioned where she went to high school, and there was only one high school there back then...he found her in his year book and seeing that face reminded him of "that stuck up idiot" as he put it).

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Four points: The conclusion of the Washington Post article is that Democrats are by and large content with the two nominees. They don't feel like they MUST stop Sanders or Clinton. They're pretty fine with both. Why bother voting? 2008 was actually a bitter and close race, so many people came out as they felt their votes had impact. And yes, the Obama factor counts. But that's historic. You don't need 2008 numbers to win elections.

Second, this state of contented disinterest can and is expected to change in the general election. Clinton will play the fear card with Trump. She is already pivoting. She may even inspire -- and yes, she's capable of that, she was and is one of the most admired women in the world.

Third, with the party is full blown civil war, GOP voters are making record numbers in a contest for the party's identity. I know you wanted to remove the GOP factor, but with your argument that Democrats could lose the election because enthusiasm is lower, well, if hypothetically half the GOP would rather stay home than vote Trump, why would the Democrats need 2008 numbers to win? Remember that your original post on this is whether the Republicans "won a landslide" over the Democrats, or demonstrate likelihood to do so, by the virtue of the number of people voting in their respective primaries. The pundits didn't bring this up (much) because they've already talked about correlation between primary and general election turnout and said, nah, didn't think so. Too much going on.

Fourth, the trend you noted from the data is statistically insignificant due to the sample size. Now that doesn't stop people from hypothesizing and debating, but it raises a cautionary note on whether this is a "real" trend in the first place.

To get it over with, your first point is the same with my third, so no dispute on that. And the forth point. Just do a statistics analysis, and you will find the 95% CI of percentage turnout for Republican Primary is roughly 8.1-10.3, while Democrat is 11.1-17.5. So yeah if my calculation correct, there is less than 2.5% chance that more Republican percentage actually turned out for RNC primary than Democrat based on their data.
(just to prove that it is statistically significant. Don't blame me, blame statistics )

But I don't understand why you only make one-sided assumptions in your 2nd and 3rd point. Because there is nothing to say Trump can't do the same: playing the fear card over Hillary and inspire up the GOP. In fact he actually had track to do that because he caused more GOP candidates to drop out by attacking them than Hillary did. Similarly, on the whole GOP civil war, anyone can also point back on how 33% Bernie supporters said they won't vote for Hillary no matter what, and her lack of inspiration will get even less young voters turn out than Bernie. Or something along that line.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Primary forecasts -- I rely on FiveThirtyEight here, since they are the best in the business (they missed Michigan, like everybody else...and that's about it) -- suggest that Clinton holds strong leads in states like New York and California, delegate-rich states that will easily dwarf margins of victory gained in other states. Sanders will need Michigans all the way to the convention. Big Michigans. NY and Cali mandatory.

Statistically very, very unlikely barring a series of catastrophically faulty polling results or dramatically changed circumstances.

Sorry, unless a meteor hits Hillary tomorrow, she has a mental breakdown on live television, some crazy blows up another American skyscraper, or the "damn emails" actually stick, it's over.

I also often used the 538 to track too. But their prediction based on only 2 things: poll number and demography assumption in remaining states. Check it, it's quite easy to see when they have to test it over different scenario.

So yeah three things that can throw their prediction off the chart: the unpolled voters, wrong demographic assumption, and new developments in the race. The first already got full attention, the second actually took credit for Michigan and could change the development of all northern states. And the third, well, haven't happened yet so no one know what could happen.

I actually hope that more Hillary voters believed that the race already is over than Bernie's one. Because that could be one of those new unexpected developments

[GreyZone]

Trump skips next GOP debate because it takes time during an event Trump already planned to attend before he got to know about the debate.

Fox News won't be pleased with this. I mean seriously, Cruz vs Kasich? Goodbye ratings. Will they endlessly attack the absent Trump to become the ultimate "anti-Trump" candidate? Or will Cruz target Kasich to crush him and turn this into a 2-man race? Or will the debate be cancelled alltogether? Guess we'll have to wait and see to find out.

But if it takes place, it will very likely damage Kasich, because he won't be able to play the "highly principled neutral adult in the room"-card anymore, because he will either talk policy alongside Cruz, or be under attack from Cruz. I think Cruz just attacking Trump while Kasich staying out of it seems unlikely, because Cruz should realize by now that taking votes away from Trump is close to impossible. Taking Kasich votes would be much easier.


I think Trump changed his strategy a bit. He didn't have a q&a session at the press conference this time. RSBN has no upcoming Trump rallies listed. There is a high chance that Trump tries to avoid any further "controversies" so that the last news about him is his "big win" yesterday. He probably wants this to "sink in" for some time. I think this may create a "vacuum" of Trump topics, so instead of talking about Trump, Cruz and Kasich will have to focus on each other instead, as they cannot bring up older Trump controversies over and over again.

[GDB]

I don't trust Hilary because the only platform she supports is herself. You have money to give her, or are in some way able to help her get more power? She now supports what you support.

She's flip flopped on basically everything she's said this campaign depending on where she is and who she's talking to. She's just as much of a liar as Trump or any other republican candidate, but less abrasive about it. And let's not forget her revisionist history lessons.

At this point, the only way I know for sure that I'd vote for her in the general election is if it's between her or Cruz. Because for as much of a blowhard as Trump is, and as much of a liar as Hilary is, Cruz is a genuine psychopath who believes he was anointed by God to bring about a Kingdom of Heaven.