Donald Trump - Opinions?

[britbox]

What's the next primary @Moxie @Federberg? Is there a schedule you can post up?

 

[Federberg]

New Hampshire...
http://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2016-presidential-primary-schedule-calendar/

 

[Moxie]

NH votes a week from today. Interesting to note that they have an open-primary, meaning that if you are registered "independent," you can vote in either, though not both. As disparate as they are, Trump and Sanders are considered the "renegade" candidates of this primary cycle, and NH is a very independent-minded state. But they do border on Vermont, Sanders home-state. And the question after last night is if the Trump supporters are arm-chair angry people, but not voters. It's possible that, with the air going out of the Trump balloon, independent voters might skip over to the Democratic side and vote Bernie, if they're feeling angry at the status quo. I'm not sure how that will affect Hillary, but it could be fatal for The Donald.

 

[Federberg]

NH votes a week from today. Interesting to note that they have an open-primary, meaning that if you are registered "independent," you can vote in either, though not both. As disparate as they are, Trump and Sanders are considered the "renegade" candidates of this primary cycle, and NH is a very independent-minded state. But they do border on Vermont, Sanders home-state. And the question after last night is if the Trump supporters are arm-chair angry people, but not voters. It's possible that, with the air going out of the Trump balloon, independent voters might skip over to the Democratic side and vote Bernie, if they're feeling angry at the status quo. I'm not sure how that will affect Hillary, but it could be fatal for The Donald.

Bernie has been leading in NH for some time. Not sure it would do much. As you say that's a place where he should do well

 

[britbox]

Trump: "I think we could have used a better ground game, a term I wasn’t even familiar with"

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...0&spJobID=860338826&spReportId=ODYwMzM4ODI2S0

 

[Moxie]

He didn't "press the flesh." You may not know that Trump is a germaphobe and doesn't like to touch other people. And now he admits he doesn't know how to run a campaign. Well, it's beginning to show. He thinks he can muscle anything down by the power of his will. Now he's calling Cruz a cheat. (Though I'm rather with him as to whether or not Cruz meets the criterion of being a "natural born citizen.") What a sore loser.

 

[calitennis127]

Trump has no elaborated "positions." He is all bombast and promises. And BS. You imprint a lot on him because you want him to be your guy. I disagree with a lot of what you say, but you are not uninformed. Donald Trump is. He's also an egotist, a loose-cannon, and someone given to deep grudges. If that sounds like Putin (or even Berlusconi,) it should. I believe you have deep concerns, as to ISIL, and otherwise the state of the world, as is normal. If you think Donald Trump can solve them, and Hillary Clinton can't, I have to say I don't think you've been paying attention. You may like the rhetoric, but I don't think you'd be happy with the mindless "lead with the chin," in the end.

I don't think Trump would necessarily do a "tremendous job" as he insists, but I do not see why he would be worse than any of the alternatives or why anyone else is more qualified than him to be president. Rubio right now is the object of neocon adulation, and his backers at Fox News, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, and the DC-Republican think tanks are the people who gave you 8 years of George W. Bush. It is hilarious to see these people say that Trump doesn't understand the issues or isn't substantive, when their beloved George W. Bush was the master of malapropisms, spoke English like a second language, and knew nothing about foreign policy or any other issue of concern to a president. Yet Krauthammer and his buddies talk about 2000-2008 like those were the good old days and Trump isn't enlightened enough to continue that halcyon moment in history. Furthermore, I do not see why Trump is any less qualified to be president of the United States than Obama, who is doctrinaire in his incompetence. Obama has a more agreeable persona but Trump is clearly the superior economic/business mind. If Trump just stuck to his nationalist/realist guns to make good trade deals and control the border and hopefully avoid war with Iran (which Rubio would almost certainly bring), then he may actually end up doing a decent job.

Also - it is quite disappointing that Trump has not gotten more credit for saying that he opposed the war in Iraq and would not want to repeat that kind of mistake. This has infuriated the Republican-neocon establishment. I applaud him for that. That is more than Hillary can say.

Finally, while I do not think anyone can make the case that Trump has demonstrated intellectualism or significant knowledge, he has good instincts and his positions are quite often right. I have found some of his debate performances to be awful because he hasn't justified his positions well, but that doesn't alter the reality that he is fundamentally right.

 

[calitennis127]

So much for the Donald being invincible. The problem with being a braggart is that when you're embarrassed it's hard to recover. Perhaps we'll get a proper contest between Cruz and Rubio

If you did not like the era of George W. Bush, I highly recommend that you do not tout Marco Rubio. Everyone in the Republican establishment who influenced Bush and orchestrated his disastrous foreign policy is backing Rubio. Support for Rubio means support for major Middle Eastern war, not just with ISIS but also the Iranians.

For all of the people who are supporting Rubio over Trump, all I can say is that they have clearly learned nothing from history - not even recent history.

 

[calitennis127]

Trump: "I think we could have used a better ground game, a term I wasn’t even familiar with"

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...0&spJobID=860338826&spReportId=ODYwMzM4ODI2S0

To be honest Britbox, I think that what hurt Trump more than anything were 2 things: 1) skipping the debate, and 2) attacking Cruz in recent weeks.

Not attending the debate clearly turned off undecideds. I think I read somewhere that only 14% of last-day deciders in the Iowa Republican caucus went with Trump. The rest all went to Cruz and Rubio. What Trump did in skipping the debate was a move suited for a businessman or a gangster, not a politician. When you are running for office, you can't be a complete a-hole 100% of the time, as tempting as it probably is. You have to ease up and back off at moments, especially with white voters and female voters for whom showing up and smiling for the cameras is always important. Trump made a statement but also turned off many people by doing this. I also think that he was, to use his term, "unfair" to Megyn Kelly. Aside from Kelly's smart aleck questions in the debate last August, she has generally been pretty amenable to Trump on her show. I understand why Trump holds a grudge against her, but unfortunately he made her into too much of a bogey(wo)man in my opinion. At the first debate, Kelly was simply taking orders from her GOP-establishment bosses to show up Trump and he should have known that. I don't think it was a case of Megyn Kelly individualistically being an irredeemably rotten apple.

As for Cruz, his current stature is primarily the result of Trump's repeated attacks, which made Cruz relevant when he wasn't and which galvanized support among Christian evangelicals and Glenn Beck fans. Trump had the support of these people, but once he started attacking their longtime hero Ted Cruz, he opened himself up to the charge of being a fake conservative who had always lived by "New York values". There was no need for Trump to go after Cruz, yet he did. He has lost a significant slice of the Republican electorate for the time being by doing this. If you recall, Cruz was not even in the discussion up until a couple months ago. Trump's attacks have made Cruz relevant.

 

[Moxie]

I don't think Trump would necessarily do a "tremendous job" as he insists, but I do not see why he would be worse than any of the alternatives or why anyone else is more qualified than him to be president. Rubio right now is the object of neocon adulation, and his backers at Fox News, the Weekly Standard, the New York Post, and the DC-Republican think tanks are the people who gave you 8 years of George W. Bush. It is hilarious to see these people say that Trump doesn't understand the issues or isn't substantive, when their beloved George W. Bush was the master of malapropisms, spoke English like a second language, and knew nothing about foreign policy or any other issue of concern to a president. Yet Krauthammer and his buddies talk about 2000-2008 like those were the good old days and Trump isn't enlightened enough to continue that halcyon moment in history. Furthermore, I do not see why Trump is any less qualified to be president of the United States than Obama, who is doctrinaire in his incompetence. Obama has a more agreeable persona but Trump is clearly the superior economic/business mind. If Trump just stuck to his nationalist/realist guns to make good trade deals and control the border and hopefully avoid war with Iran (which Rubio would almost certainly bring), then he may actually end up doing a decent job.

Also - it is quite disappointing that Trump has not gotten more credit for saying that he opposed the war in Iraq and would not want to repeat that kind of mistake. This has infuriated the Republican-neocon establishment. I applaud him for that. That is more than Hillary can say.

Finally, while I do not think anyone can make the case that Trump has demonstrated intellectualism or significant knowledge, he has good instincts and his positions are quite often right. I have found some of his debate performances to be awful because he hasn't justified his positions well, but that doesn't alter the reality that he is fundamentally right.

While I don't agree with all of this, it's not an unfair assessment. I agree that GW Bush was basically a talking monkey put forward by the Republican establishment who could control him. Which is why I also agree with you that it is cynical of them to push Rubio, as he's to their taste, if not the choice of the people. I haven't always disagreed with Trump, because he's not deeply conservative, in many ways. As you say, didn't back the Iraq war, and he did put down Cruz when he went against "New York values." And if when you say that he's no worse than the alternatives you mean amongst the Republican candidates, again, I largely agree, since I think they are varying degrees of the same clown car. (The Democratic candidates are vastly more qualified.) Where you and I part ways is in the notion that he could approach Obama's level of skill at diplomacy, that Trump is a superior economic leader when it comes to the big picture, or would in any way do a "decent job". He's too divisive, bullying, and, tbh, I think he is fundamentally too dismissive of the system to work within it. I don't believe "my way or the highway" works in politics, and I don't think it would make us any friends overseas.

See that? We don't disagree on everything.

 

[calitennis127]

While I don't agree with all of this, it's not an unfair assessment. I agree that GW Bush was basically a talking monkey put forward by the Republican establishment who could control him. Which is why I also agree with you that it is cynical of them to push Rubio, as he's to their taste, if not the choice of the people. I haven't always disagreed with Trump, because he's not deeply conservative, in many ways. As you say, didn't back the Iraq war, and he did put down Cruz when he went against "New York values." Where you and I part ways is in the notion that he could approach Obama's level of skill at diplomacy, that Trump is a superior economic leader when it comes to the big picture, or would in any way do a "decent job". He's too divisive, bullying, and, tbh, I think he is fundamentally too dismissive of the system to work within it. I don't believe "my way or the highway" works in politics, and I don't think it would make us any friends overseas.

See that? We don't disagree on everything.

Obama is much more stubborn and divisive than you are acknowledging. He has repeatedly snubbed his nose at the right over issues like gun control, Islamic jihadism, and other issues. He went to the mosque in Baltimore entirely to make a statement to all conservatives that he objected to their rhetoric on Islam and that "it had no place in America", as he put it. (Is that not divisive?) But, apparently, a mosque that has been under federal investigation since 2010 for ties to terrorism does have a place in America. This mosque in Baltimore had an imam not too long ago who openly supported al-Qaeda and, more recently, one of the members of its community was found to be plotting to bomb an army recruiting center in Catonsville, Maryland. Perhaps you know where this is since you are from Baltimore. Obama is the first one to claim that he laments the jihadist atrocities like those in Chattanooga, San Bernardino, Fort Hood, and Boston, but then he does everything in his power to make sure that we cannot prevent any repeats. He also is a radical feminist who apparently had no problem with the members of this mosque community being segregated by gender as they listened to him.

As for Obama's diplomacy, I think you are confusing competence with tepidness and anti-militarism. Obama is palatable to females who think that foreign relations is like drinking with your girlfriends at a bar or getting your nails done or getting fitted for a dress. It is not. Foreign policy is not about sensitivity and being pleasant, as Ms. Merkel just learned with the Cologne rapes.

Let's not forget just how wrong Obama has repeatedly been with his predictions and assessments. When he pulled the troops out of Iraq, he assured everyone that the U.S. was leaving behind a stable, viable, multiethnic government with a trained army and a unified national identity. How well has that worked out? Obama has also armed and encouraged numerous rebel groups in Syria, which has intensified the civil war and created a huge vacuum for ISIS to fill. The Obama administration has also helped to orchestrate the destabilizing of Libya, where ISIS is now firmly entrenched. Let's not forget as well Obama's infamous "JV" categorization of ISIS which Fox News repeated ad nauseaum. Obama's remark, though overplayed by Fox News, illustrated his general attitude that Islamic terrorism is a problem that just is not that big a deal or will go away. He won't acknowledge that these people are at war with us and that they are a significant global force. Also, I am not anti-Russian like the neocons, but Putin has embarrassed Obama and clearly does not view him as a serious leader.

Finally, I am not all convinced that the Iran deal is going to work. It is good that Obama avoided war because invading Iran would be a disaster, but his starry-eyed 10-year-old's vision of the Middle East has little grounding in reality. It has repeatedly proven to be nonsense. The Iranian leaders are conniving bastards who want a nuclear bomb to counter the Sunni bomb in Pakistan. This can be acknowledged without invading them. Iran is Irael's concern, not America's.

As for agreeing, yes, we can agree sometimes, but never too much. That would be uncomfortable.

 

[Moxie]

Obama is much more stubborn and divisive than you are acknowledging. He has repeatedly snubbed his nose at the right over issues like gun control, Islamic jihadism, and other issues. He went to the mosque in Baltimore entirely to make a statement to all conservatives that he objected to their rhetoric on Islam and that "it had no place in America", as he put it. (Is that not divisive?) But, apparently, a mosque that has been under federal investigation since 2010 for ties to terrorism does have a place in America. This mosque in Baltimore had an imam not too long ago who openly supported al-Qaeda and, more recently, one of the members of its community was found to be plotting to bomb an army recruiting center in Catonsville, Maryland. Perhaps you know where this is since you are from Baltimore.

Obama doesn't snub his nose at the right on gun issues. He disagrees with the gun lobby, as do many of us, and we weep and moan for senseless killings. That is a basic point of disagreement, and doesn't qualify as "snubbing his nose." As to going to the mosque in Baltimore, you can call it divisive, and others would call it being "inclusive." (I'm not sure about how much you can link a mosque to it's bad apples. No one seems to be condemning churches where those who bomb abortion clinics worship. Also, to clarify, I'm not from Baltimore.).[/QUOTE]

As for Obama's diplomacy, I think you are confusing competence with tepidness and anti-militarism. Obama is palatable to females who think that foreign relations is like drinking with your girlfriends at a bar or getting your nails done or getting fitted for a dress. It is not. Foreign policy is not about sensitivity and being pleasant, as Ms. Merkel just learned with the Cologne rapes.

Another stunning example of your sexism and tone-deafness. You equate being diplomatic with being "soft," which translates to feminine, to you, and you devolve from there.

As for agreeing, yes, we can agree sometimes, but never too much. That would be uncomfortable.

So much for extending the olive branch. Your way of thinking is the dinosaur of the 21st Century.

 

[Moxie]

To be honest Britbox, I think that what hurt Trump more than anything were 2 things: 1) skipping the debate, and 2) attacking Cruz in recent weeks.

Not attending the debate clearly turned off undecideds. I think I read somewhere that only 14% of last-day deciders in the Iowa Republican caucus went with Trump. The rest all went to Cruz and Rubio. What Trump did in skipping the debate was a move suited for a businessman or a gangster, not a politician. When you are running for office, you can't be a complete a-hole 100% of the time, as tempting as it probably is. You have to ease up and back off at moments, especially with white voters and female voters for whom showing up and smiling for the cameras is always important. Trump made a statement but also turned off many people by doing this. I also think that he was, to use his term, "unfair" to Megyn Kelly. Aside from Kelly's smart aleck questions in the debate last August, she has generally been pretty amenable to Trump on her show. I understand why Trump holds a grudge against her, but unfortunately he made her into too much of a bogey(wo)man in my opinion. At the first debate, Kelly was simply taking orders from her GOP-establishment bosses to show up Trump and he should have known that. I don't think it was a case of Megyn Kelly individualistically being an irredeemably rotten apple.

As for Cruz, his current stature is primarily the result of Trump's repeated attacks, which made Cruz relevant when he wasn't and which galvanized support among Christian evangelicals and Glenn Beck fans. Trump had the support of these people, but once he started attacking their longtime hero Ted Cruz, he opened himself up to the charge of being a fake conservative who had always lived by "New York values". There was no need for Trump to go after Cruz, yet he did. He has lost a significant slice of the Republican electorate for the time being by doing this. If you recall, Cruz was not even in the discussion up until a couple months ago. Trump's attacks have made Cruz relevant.

Aside from the obvious sexism, about female voters needing to get smiled at, and Megyn Kelly being a "smart-aleck," there is some truth to this. Trump's gambit of skipping the last debate probably did back-fire on him, and he has at least helped make Ted Cruz relevant.

Likewise, his reliance on raillies, rather than a ground campaign just bit him in the ass via the weather, in New Hampshire. He had a rally scheduled for Londonderry, I think, and all of the airports were shut for the snow on Friday. And the folks who showed up were less than pleased when it was cancelled at the last minute. Rescheduled for Monday. Meanwhile, the other campaigns have enjoyed the otherwise unseasonably warm weather to get their people out to knock on doors, up until Friday. Trump's man-of-the-people act is wearing thin with the people, and he's running out of time before Tuesday.

 

[calitennis127]

Obama doesn't snub his nose at the right on gun issues. He disagrees with the gun lobby, as do many of us, and we weep and moan for senseless killings. That is a basic point of disagreement, and doesn't qualify as "snubbing his nose." As to going to the mosque in Baltimore, you can call it divisive, and others would call it being "inclusive." (I'm not sure about how much you can link a mosque to it's bad apples. No one seems to be condemning churches where those who bomb abortion clinics worship. Also, to clarify, I'm not from Baltimore.).

Another stunning example of your sexism and tone-deafness. You equate being diplomatic with being "soft," which translates to feminine, to you, and you devolve from there.

So much for extending the olive branch. Your way of thinking is the dinosaur of the 21st Century.[/QUOTE]


Everyone weeps and moans over "senseless killings". That feeling of sympathy is not unique to the silly opponents of gun ownership. When Obama comes out 10 minutes after a gun attack like the one in Oregon and blames it on guns, then he is making a point and being divisive. Whether you agree with him or not is one thing. But it is unmistakable that he is taking a stand against political opponents and is thereby being "divisive". A proclivity toward "divisiveness" is not a prerogative of the right. It is the natural consequence of having a conviction of any sort.

Obama's intention in going to the Baltimore-area mosque was to show up the right and make a point. That is the primary reason for him going there and even the BBC's initial report on the "visit" said as much. Him going was also an expression of his stupidity, ignorance, and shallowness, but beyond that, his intention was to make an anti-Trump, anti-Carson, anti-Rubio statement. That is beyond question. Obama, like you and all other leftists, is entirely a bigot, but it is just that his targets are different than those of others who they don't like. In fact, all human beings have prejudices, which is an inescapable fact of human life. Leftists just like to pretend that they don't have any. But if you look beneath the surface, you see that they are overloaded with them. Obama, at the end of the day, is pro-Islamic and anti-Christian. The major irony of his visit is that he is a feminist and also claims to support religious tolerance, yet he attended a mosque where the sexes were separated as they listened to him and during his speech he kissed up to a religion that is by far the most un-inclusive in the world today (if you care to use that dimwitted term, "inclusive"). Christians across the Middle East are the most persecuted religious minority in any region of the world and Obama has little concern for them.

My issue with Obama's attempts at diplomacy are not that he is attempting diplomacy per se. My issue is with his insipid temperament, which is aesthetically conveyed through that adenoidal voice and habit of stuttering, and his overall tepid attitude that betrays a contempt for intellectual clarity and intellectual rigor. When it comes to situations like those in Iraq, Syria, or Iran, the man has no ideas with any basis in the realities of history. He is riding waves of sentimentalism, pro-Islamic prejudice, wistfulness, and naive optimism - again, with no grounding in reality, let alone intellectual clarity. He is, all around, just a joke of a man and a leader.

As for being a dinosaur of the 21st century, in many significant respects, this is an immense compliment. If I could, I would gladly restore the pre-WWI monarchies and reverse the wretched process of mass democratization in the modern West. Life would be better for all. There would not be, for example, waves of sexual assaults across Europe by Muslim migrants. So thank you.

 

[calitennis127]

Aside from the obvious sexism, about female voters needing to get smiled at, and Megyn Kelly being a "smart-aleck," there is some truth to this. Trump's gambit of skipping the last debate probably did back-fire on him, and he has at least helped make Ted Cruz relevant.

You need to stop being overly sensitive. My characterization of Megyn Kelly's question as "smart aleck" in nature had nothing to do with her being a female. You should also note that I said she was taking orders from her bosses to ask them. So I am sexist against Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch too? That makes no sense.

As for the female voters, I absolutely stand by those remarks. In a non-female suffrage age, would a candidate for office bring his 80-something mother out on stage to appeal to people's emotions like Jeb Bush just did? No. I do not see what the feelings of an 80-year-old woman whose older son is a war criminal have to do with any kind of intelligent political discourse. Jeb brought his mother on to the stage entirely to appeal to people's emotions and to look sweet and gentle. It served no purpose in conveying an idea or a meaningful policy.

Likewise, his reliance on raillies, rather than a ground campaign just bit him in the ass via the weather, in New Hampshire. He had a rally scheduled for Londonderry, I think, and all of the airports were shut for the snow on Friday. And the folks who showed up were less than pleased when it was cancelled at the last minute. Rescheduled for Monday. Meanwhile, the other campaigns have enjoyed the otherwise unseasonably warm weather to get their people out to knock on doors, up until Friday. Trump's man-of-the-people act is wearing thin with the people, and he's running out of time before Tuesday.

If Trump's appeal really is declining, that owes to the stupidity of the electorate. Given that Republican voters have given us George W. Bush in the past and that on the other side we see support for Hillary and Bernie, this reality cannot be overstated.

 

[Moxie]

Since you've messed up the formatting of this thread, I will respond without quoting. Your take on Obama is based on your prejudice, and I don't mean racially. He is widely admired by many, including internationally. You think he "whines" because he grates on you, but most of us find it a nice tenor speaking voice. (And he sings pretty well, btw.) He is no "joke:" the unemployment rate is the lowest in 8 years, as is the national deficit. Remember what a mess he inherited from GWBush? We have 71 months of steady job growth, the most in history.

I have no reason to stop telling you you're a sexist. It's not "over-sensitive." Insisting that Megyn Kelly is merely a mouthpiece of more powerful men is sexist, on its face. Don't forget, she's considered the one who actually came out the best in the last debate. I'm not a fan, but she has held candidates' feet to the fire, and that doesn't make her a "smart aleck." It makes her a journalist. What she asked Trump was fair, and pressing the other candidates in the last debate is her job. If you're disturbed by the sexual assaults perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, then I hope you would be disturbed by the many sexual assaults, and indignities perpetrated against women around the world. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made a specific effort against them.

And if you think that Trump's waning popularity demonstrates some "stupidity" on the part of the electorate, I could make the case that the electorate has had cold water splashed on its face, and has decided not to go with a reality star that cares more for his ego than any of them.

 

[Federberg]

Since you've messed up the formatting of this thread, I will respond without quoting. Your take on Obama is based on your prejudice, and I don't mean racially. He is widely admired by many, including internationally. You think he "whines" because he grates on you, but most of us find it a nice tenor speaking voice. (And he sings pretty well, btw.) He is no "joke:" the unemployment rate is the lowest in 8 years, as is the national deficit. Remember what a mess he inherited from GWBush? We have 71 months of steady job growth, the most in history.

I have no reason to stop telling you you're a sexist. It's not "over-sensitive." Insisting that Megyn Kelly is merely a mouthpiece of more powerful men is sexist, on its face. Don't forget, she's considered the one who actually came out the best in the last debate. I'm not a fan, but she has held candidates' feet to the fire, and that doesn't make her a "smart aleck." It makes her a journalist. What she asked Trump was fair, and pressing the other candidates in the last debate is her job. If you're disturbed by the sexual assaults perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, then I hope you would be disturbed by the many sexual assaults, and indignities perpetrated against women around the world. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made a specific effort against them.

And if you think that Trump's waning popularity demonstrates some "stupidity" on the part of the electorate, I could make the case that the electorate has had cold water splashed on its face, and has decided not to go with a reality star that cares more for his ego than any of them.

I admire your willingness to try to get him to listen to your argument Moxie. You have greater patience than I do. Every response has to include an insult, it's not dialectic, it's just childish. By the way did you see Marcobot? Absolutely hilarious!

 

[britbox]

If Trump has a bad Super Tuesday (1 March) then I doubt he'll stay the course and I reckon he needs a result before then to carry any sort of momentum going into it.

 

[Federberg]

If Trump has a bad Super Tuesday (1 March) then I doubt he'll stay the course and I reckon he needs a result before then to carry any sort of momentum going into it.

Yes he'll probably bail out. He'll say something like "I'm happy I've been able to influence the debate, and I didn't really want to be President anyway, I'm a business man!" Good riddance! I'm sure the Democrats would be gutted though, the surest way to to ensure a victory is to have Trump in there

 

[britbox]

Trump sweeps to victory in New Hampshire:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hampshire-republican-primary-us-election-2016



Sanders beats Clinton in the Democrat race.