The deciding vote in the US presidential election
Nobody has ever lost a Super Tuesday and gone on to win the nomination, and after big wins to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton on that special Tuesday in March it looked like history was safe.
In the last week, however, Republican Ted Cruz and Democrat Bernie Sanders have gained enough ground to challenge not only Trump and Clinton respectively, but history too.
So from here on it gets ‘super serious’. Will Ted Cruz gain enough ground to topple the once seemingly unstoppable Donald Trump, and will the last minute Bernie Sanders surge be strong enough to claw back the comfortable lead recently enjoyed by Hillary Clinton?
Either way, we’ll know soon enough who the final two candidates will be.
But that’s in the future and the race is still on. Trump versus Cruz. Clinton versus Sanders.
Readers of The AIMN have enough savvy to know a bit about these four candidates so I’d like to do a bit of a hypothetical with you. Imagine for one moment that you are an American citizen and are eligible to vote in the 2016 presidential election. Although we don’t know who the last two standing will be – this isn’t necessary in a hypothetical – you will be voting for one of the four. Who will it be? Think carefully because yours is the deciding vote! The fate of the world hinges on you! Cast your vote below and give us your reasons in the comments section (or, as is allowed in a democracy, remain silent).
[poll id=”4″]
43 comments
Login here Register here-
Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com
-
RosemaryJ36
-
JohnB
-
brickbob
-
John Kelly
-
Shazz
-
Jennifer Meyer-Smith
-
JohnB
-
Angry Old Man
-
Carol Taylor
-
Aortic
-
Brian Intimit
-
Jennifer Meyer-Smith
-
paul walter
-
Jennifer Meyer-Smith
-
Denis
-
richard grant
-
Barry Thompson.
-
Coralie Naumann
-
Jaquix
-
Jexpat
-
Michael Taylor
-
jimhaz
-
Backyard Bob
-
kizhmet
-
Jexpat
-
Martin Bryce
-
ImagiNation
-
You can't be serious?
-
Jexpat
-
Michael Taylor
-
Kate M
-
ImagiNation
-
astrallds
-
Jexpat
-
ImagiNation
-
Mandy
-
Jennifer Meyer-Smith
-
Matters Not
-
Jexpat
-
Matters Not
-
ImagiNation
-
Direct current
Return to home pageAt 4:53 WST, it looks very much like a one horse race…
I voted as I did because I want the President to be someone who helps those who need to be helped.
British blogger Myles Dyer in this short video encapsulates the essence of my selected candidate’s appeal to the common citizen – and highlights the importance/significance that candidature to the wider world.
Such courageous, sensible, rational leadership is a template hopefully others can/will follow – provided of course they have that one other essential, but rare ingredient – personal integrity.
I imagine i am like a lot of ”’ hopefully ”’ rational people who would vote for Sanders. Clinton is an establishment fraud, a con woman.
Sanders is the only one I trust to work for the people. The other three are too beholden to big money.
No brainer …the others are all corrupt cockroaches
Like my three previous commenters, I support Bernie Sanders.
He is a man of the people and has advocated socio-economic change meaningfully for a long time to his credit.
A win for America with Sanders is a win for Australia too because it promotes the Progressive Movement that works for the 99% into the future.
Does anyone wonder why Hillary Clinton already has the support of almost all the super-delegates?
See Counterpunch and:
Shades of LNP’s ‘SeeNoDonors’
It’s a worry that some folks voted for Clinton, Cruz or Trump. In my view, Bernie’s the least evil, but, if I had my druthers, it would be Jill Stein, who doesn’t seem to be evil at all.
Jennifer, I agree completely about Sanders being a man of the people. I cringe at the thought of the USA being represented by a person such as Trump or Cruz. I have a feeling that Clinton might take it out, but with Sanders being the President America should have had.
Gore Vidal. ” by time a person has nominated for President of the United States they have been bought ten times over.” The amounts “donated ” to political parties worldwide could solve poverty and make the world a better place tomorrow. Harry Truman said, ” no one gives you money and expects nothing in return. “
The fate of the world rests on this contest. Will we continue the road we’re on where capital decides what we eat, where we live, how we live? To be so reliant on the American public to have such a huge say in my life fills me with dread but that is the way of it & so the only candidate that has the moxy to keep big business on check is Sanders. In God we trust, ****, we’re all doomed!
Carol,
if I have to choose a second then Clinton #2 is it.
However, I see her as neo-con Big Biz arse-licker who has a questionable political record as Secretary of State.
The fact that Bernie is giving her a really good run for her money despite her adulterated support from the DNC, is a mixed blessing.
Hillary might win coz of the smelly donor contributions that Bernie doesn’t get. Hillary might win coz the disreputable and biased DNC chose her without good reason.
But Hillary will be made to acknowledge the power of Sanders’ grassroots people and their visions and demands for socio-economic improvements across the board.
Even if Bernie doesn’t get there himself, his legacy certainly does!
Thanks Jennifer, for saving me the effort. Hillary has been anal in her refusal of Sander’s invitation for her to rule out more Wall St interference and advocate- without unequivocation- for reform (in the real, not the neoliberal sense) of the US (and thus global) financial system, with its current consequences for everyone bar a few oligarchs.
Clinton supporters may whinge about Krugman and the like probing the issue, but refuse the simple act of clarification, which should be easy in the wake of the Panama leak. Time for capitalism to pay its dues , or f- off.
Hear, hear paul walter.
Bernie is the only candidate that is not in the pockets of the wealthy. He will do his best to get rid of this criminal neocon politics which I believe is destroying the World.
It’s Bernie Sanders for me because of his economic and social policies.
Bernie is my choice too. He appears to be a man who is genuinely concerned about the welfare of his fellow Americans and not influenced by the big end of town.
The world needs a change and that won’t happen with the established parties. Sanders is the change we need.
Hopefully he will be the leader other countries pay attention to.
Coralie Naumann just wrote what I was going to write, thank you Coralie. Agree 100%. The world needs Bernie Sanders to shake things up. The Old Guard in their panama hats are on the way out …. (with a bit of luck).
I’ll lay close to even odds that the next US president doesn’t appear on that list.
Jexpat, there’s whispers that the GOP will overrule Trump’s nomination should he win it.
I just wish Sanders was 15 years younger. He doesn’t seem that spritely.
The world needs a change and that won’t happen with the established parties. Sanders is the change we need.
I think Bernie is pretty awesome, but he’s a Democrat and will ultimately be beholden to his Party like any other Democrat President would be. But he’s forced the Dems to shift to the left on some social policy platforms and that in itself his a victory for sanity in U.S. politics.
I have read and heard a few of Sander’s speeches/interviews and have been impressed every time. He clearly understands economics. He is a ray of hope.
Michael:
Trump would likely have to sew up 1,237 delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. He’s not quite on target (presently at he has 758, which is 92% of his target) to reach that number. To be safe from rogue dissenters, he’d actually need a cushion of some 20 or so.
After the first ballot, many delegates will be “freed up” to switch their votes, and a significant number of those likely wouldn’t be inclined to stay with or switch to Trump -or the equally odious, disliked (and frankly, more dangerous) Cruz.
If neither of them can muster the majority, then another candidate or candidates will be proposed. That sets up a dynamic like we saw after Turnbull rolled Abbott. Call it a cynosural (or dragon slayer) effect.
Clinton has the opposite problem. Odds are that the delegate
mathrules on the Democratic side will ensure her nomination, but only after an acrimonious several weeks of primaries (which she will likely lose on the West Coast). So, along with the historical baggage (which includes some very high negatives- potentially the highest for any major party presidential nominee, if Trump is out) she’s got a problem convincing progressives to vote for her.Unfortunately, the Clinton and their surrogates and supporters have proven tone deaf in their appeals to those potential voters. Attempts to shame, deride or frighten them have been commonplace- and have not proven to be effective tactics with these constituencies in the path. Indeed, it’s often alienated them.
So a very real possibility is that a “fresh Republican face” comes along that the entirety of the corporate media paints incessantly as a “moderate” “pragmatist” and genuine all around fine person- in which case, all bets in the general election are off- despite the embarrassing and appalling events of the past year.
BS because he doesn’t spout bs.
As history has proven that what a politician says to get elected and what a politician does when elected are two different things, my vote will be cast from my observations alone. The US has evolved into a festering pile of neoconservative corruption, bleed of it’s dignity, it’s freedoms and it’s wealth. That said…
Hillery? A neocon warmongering for Clinton Foundation profit? No.
Cruz? With his ‘dedication’ to more of the same neocon military-industrial complex profiteering? No.
Burney? A closet neocon with double standards on the US policy of perpetual war and the underlying problem that socialists do not really understand economics? No.
Trump? The neocons and the 1% are so afraid of Trump they have spent billions in advertising to destroy him and used their bought and paid for media to discredit him worldwide. As I am opposed to perpetual war, the historic, worldwide transfer or wealth to the 1%, the destruction of the middle classes, the militarisation of domestic police and servitude to the government, I see breaking the chain of three decades of neocon deception as the only savior of US decline. As 1% are petrified, I vote Trump.
Bernie for POTUS. He seems to want to represent the interests of ordinary Americans.
Aortic, the comment about being bought does not seem to apply to Sanders other than if all the small donations from all the little people who are funding his campaign counts as being “bought”.
Next Clinton, Trump then Cruz. Cruz is the most objectionable of the lot. Very nasty and dangerous person by all accounts.
ImagiNation:
While Trump may cause some concern for the neocons, it would come as a great surprise to those who’ve viewed his tax plan that he’s against “the historic, worldwide transfer or wealth to the 1%.”
We don’t hear much about Cruz over here, but when I’ve shared our Trump posts on Facebook the American readers have jumped in to say that he’s far better than Cruz. They of course think Trump is dangerous. Cruz must be a shocker then.
Looks like AIMN readers are #FeelingTheBern
Jexpat
Thank you for the confirmation.
Bernie all the way. If Bernie doesnt get the nomination I urge everyone to vote for Trump. As i feel that Trumo will be so terrible that its is very likely that he’d turn Americans off the republican party for generations. I also think that Elizabeth Warren would make a better first female POTUS than Hilary. I hope she runs for president in 2020.
Here’s one such statement from the horse’s mouth:
Donald J. Trump on Saturday went further than ever before in his criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, telling a crowd here that he would be fine if NATO broke up.
Mr. Trump had previously questioned the need for the organization, and on Saturday he reiterated his criticism that other NATO countries were “not paying their fair share” in comparison with the United States.
“That means we are protecting them, giving them military protection and other things, and they’re ripping off the United States. And you know what we do? Nothing,” Mr. Trump said at a subdued rally here on the outskirts of Milwaukee. “Either they have to pay up for past deficiencies or they have to get out.”
“And if it breaks up NATO, it breaks up NATO,” he concluded.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/donald-trump-says-nato-is-‘obsolete’-un-is-‘political-game’/ar-BBrgwf1
Another thing many don’t realise is when Obummer addressed the Gillard government in Canberra a few years ago, the purpose of his visit was to inform Australia of his neocon intentions to ‘advance security, prosperity and human dignity across the Asia Pacific’. Just like he did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia and Syria. If you believe China is acting aggressively as the US implies (along with Russian with NATO on it’s borders) by establishing military bases in the Spratles, the truth is China is preparing to defend itself from a probable US attack and Obummer made clear that ‘Australia will be the largest contributor of troops to this vital mission’. So you see what happens in the US election will effect Australia in many ways. Ending neocon rule and disbanding the obsolete NATO is vital for Australia’s own interests. Don’t believe anything I say, do your own research. The facts are out there, all you have to do is look for yourself.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/text-of-obamas-speech-to-parliament-20111117-1nkcw.html
Because Bernie is the only one with any morality. And because he would be fairer to the Palestinians (although a Jew himself).
So true, Mandy.
That’s why Bernie excites me. He bases his politics ON morality and downtrodden people like the Palestinians need a good, strong voice speaking for them.
Perhaps. But understand that while the Republicans may reject Trump as their nominated candidate consider that Trump in retaliation may run as an Independent. (Yes I know he promised not to do that but he would have justifiable grounds to abandon that promise if his nomination was rejected on ‘illegitimate’ grounds.) If he chose to run as an ‘Independent’, the Republicans are ‘rogered’. And they (the power players) know it.
Remember Ralph Nader and what he did to the ‘progressive cause’. Nader was a five-time candidate for President of the United States, having run as a write-in candidate in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary, as the Green Party nominee in 1996 and 2000, and as an independent candidate in 2004 and 2008.
Election of the US President doesn’t proceed on the basis of a preferential arrangement. It’s ‘winner take all’. Indeed people don’t even vote for the President directly. Just for members of the ‘.Electoral College’. (Yep, the citizens don’t actually vote for the President. Only for those who might reflect their wishes.) And sometimes they don’t.
Trump as an Independent would be a disaster for the GOP as would Sanders be for the Donkeys.
Matters Not:
Trump could not run as an independent at this “late” date and still get on all (or perhaps even most) of the 50 state’s ballots, due to arcane and convoluted state elections laws in the US.
He might be able to persuade an established minor party (e.g. the Libertarians) to cede him their nomination, though I’m not sure they’ve secured ballot spots in all 50 states, either.
Jexpat, thanks for that info. The nuances of US Presidential arrangements on a State by State basis continue to escape me. (But they do interest me.)
Have you any links that might enlighten me?
But that ‘confusion’ complicates the choices to be made, does it not?
America – Beyond Election 2016
By Adeyinka Makinde
I will vote in the US election, I am a duel national. Can’t vote senate or house, only President. Bernie is my first choice but I WILL vote for whoever is the Democratic nominee. Unless the senate and house both gain enough represenitives to take control of both the senate and the house the next Democratic President will be hog tied. I am fearful for my American family, I truely think whatever the results of this election America is screwed.