Trump to the Republicans = Corbyn to Labour

[Berberis 10]

Corbyn is popular with his party membership, if not the majority of Labour voters. But then the Labour Party membership does tend to attract folk who want everything paid for by someoneelse's money. Anyone as long as it's not their own.

 

Actually Corbyn made a very interesting speach this morning where he attacked Blair and Brown over their unsustainable spending and light touch approach bringing down the UK economy.

 

That's an illusion. Corby is popular with a small number of the party membership. As Eric Arthur pointed out, his win was due to dilution of support amongst a number of candidates. The Torys do their differently, knocking out the least supported candidate each round until there is a winner. If Labour had done this, Corbyn would not have won, in my opinion.

[Ted Heath 10]

Tbh white people are ****** off. And we ain't good people to **** off. So those politicians that dont abuse us will get votes.

 

An erudite knowledgeable and constructive contribution.Have your considered standing for parliament yourself?

[foxy lady 10]

That's an illusion. Corby is popular with a small number of the party membership. As Eric Arthur pointed out, his win was due to dilution of support amongst a number of candidates. The Torys do their differently, knocking out the least supported candidate each round until there is a winner. If Labour had done this, Corbyn would not have won, in my opinion.

 

Or

 

Jeremy Corbyn would win an even bigger landslide if Labour MPs forced him to undergo a fresh leadership election, a new poll has revealed.

 

The ElectionData/YouGov poll of party members found that 62% would re-elect Mr Corbyn, up from the 59.5% of first preferences he received when he swept to victory last September.

 

According to the new survey for pollster Ian Warren, he would easily beat his nearest rivals Hilary Benn (15%) and Dan Jarvis (12%) in a fresh contest.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/23/jeremy-corbyn-would-win-a_n_9298784.html

[JFKvsNixon 11]

One point that we're missing here in the UK is that Trump's biggest rival, Ted Cruz is hated by the party's congress members, to the point that I would't be surprised if there was an "anyone but Cruz" movement behind the scenes.

[BarryRiley 10]

The similarities are clear.

I could have said :-

Radical Muslims to the established Mosque = Nigel Farage to conservatives ;0)

 

But what are we missing? Why do they get support in the first place? Do the Milleniums (people born after 1990) see politics differently to oldies?

 

The term is Millennial for someone who is born after 1990

[Andbreathe 10]

The similarities are clear.

I could have said :-

Radical Muslims to the established Mosque = Nigel Farage to conservatives ;0)

 

But what are we missing? Why do they get support in the first place? Do the Milleniums (people born after 1990) see politics differently to oldies?

 

Speaking as an Oldie I think its naive. The heart ruling the head.

 

I struggle to understand. Give them a few years and they will learn their lesson, but what carnage will have been wrought in those few years?

 

Trump isn't attracting the young vote, where ironically here and the US Corbyn and Sanders are. In essence trump isn't a politician, he's a circus act of the freak show kind. As for him dividing the republicans as has been stated earlier, that's just plainly not true, the republicans managed that amongst themselves well before Chico the clown came on the scene.

[max 13]

That's an illusion. Corby is popular with a small number of the party membership. As Eric Arthur pointed out, his win was due to dilution of support amongst a number of candidates. The Torys do their differently, knocking out the least supported candidate each round until there is a winner. If Labour had done this, Corbyn would not have won, in my opinion.

 

Jeremy Corbyn got 49.6% of the members' votes which, when added to the affiliates and registered votes, gave him 59.5% of the vote therefore no 2nd round was required.

 

If only the members' votes were counted then Liz Kendall, on 4.5%, would have dropped out and the second preference of her voters would have been counted into the remaining candidates' totals. Should none of the remaining 3 candidates have achieved 50% + 1 vote then Yvette Cooper's 2nd preference votes would have been similarly distributed. It is inconceivable that from this JC would not have garnered the extra 0.4% required.

[Vague_Boy 10]

The difference is that Trump might actually get elected. And his views on nuclear weapons are the polar opposite of Corbyn's.

 

Donald Trump Won’t Rule Out Using Nuclear Weapons Against ISIS

 

“What good does it do to have a good nuclear triad if you’re afraid to use it?” (Trump campaign spokesperson Katrina Pierson).

 

I suggest you all spend the last year or so of your lives enjoying it as much as possible. Travel more. Spend more time with your children/grand-children. And when the sirens start wailing, ponder whether electing a racist idiot was really such a good idea. Do some of you hate Muslims so much you'd rather turn the earth into a radioactive cinder?

[LeMaquis 10]

Not quite, Trump is getting a solid 30% ......

 

The analogy with Corbyn is spot on. Winning doesn't mean that Corbyn was popular, just that there were too many Labour leadership candidates that looked the same, didn't drop out, and split the vote.

 

That analogy is miles wide of the mark. Corbyn got 60%, twice Trump's rating. The 3 others got 40% between them which would still have been 40% even if only one candidate had stood. Corbyn was massively popular unless you think 60% is unpopular.

[blake 10]

The difference is that Trump might actually get elected.

 

 

Trump has more chance of getting elected president than Corbyn does PM, but still almost no chance. It is like the difference between almost impossible, and totally impossible. Even if Trump does what I think he will do, and start tacking left like every Republican has done before him for the general election after tacking right in the primaries, and the GOP staffers get on board and at least try to moderate him, he'll still lose. He just can't reach across to too many elements of the demographic, no matter what he does from now on. He's offended/put off too many people already.

 

it will be an interesting campaign and novel. But Trump will lose by a mile. He might even lose all the Big Four states. The Democrats have got used to taking California and New York in the past few decades of general elections. Although New York is supposed to be Trump's 'home' state, nobody thinks he is going to take that. And these days they the Democrats take Florida too in a good year also. But if they take Texas then that will be amazing for them. Old-hand Democrats know that Texas at one time used to be a dependable Democratic state and they want to get it back. Texas was a solid Democratic state for 100 years, it is only since 1980 that it became a solid Republican state. Even without Trump, with the demographic changes the Democrats were thinking that they might get Texas back by about 2024 or 2028. With Trump, they might get their hands on Texas and its large number of electoral college votes well before they hoped - like now.

[foxy lady 10]

Trump has more chance of getting elected president than Corbyn does PM, but still almost no chance. It is like the difference between almost impossible, and totally impossible. Even if Trump does what I think he will do, and start tacking left like every Republican has done before him for the general election after tacking right in the primaries, and the GOP staffers get on board and at least try to moderate him, he'll still lose. He just can't reach across to too many elements of the demographic, no matter what he does from now on. He's offended/put off too many people already.

 

it will be an interesting campaign and novel. But Trump will lose by a mile. He might even lose all the Big Four states. The Democrats have got used to taking California and New York in the past few decades of general elections. Although New York is supposed to be Trump's 'home' state, nobody thinks he is going to take that. And these days they the Democrats take Florida too in a good year also. But if they take Texas then that will be amazing for them. Old-hand Democrats know that Texas at one time used to be a dependable Democratic state and they want to get it back. Texas was a solid Democratic state for 100 years, it is only since 1980 that it became a solid Republican state. Even without Trump, with the demographic changes the Democrats were thinking that they might get Texas back by about 2024 or 2028. With Trump, they might get their hands on Texas and its large number of electoral college votes well before they hoped - like now.

 

I wouldn't say that's 100% correct. I know a few Americans and Trump is portrayed rather differently over there to how the media here are reporting him. He is actually seem by many in a favourable light.

The general opinion is that much of his act is put on to get the nomination, which he will walk. What happens after that is anyone's guess. At the moment opinion has Clinton as a clear favourite, but Trump is likely to go to the electorate on a totally different (more moderate) platform from the one he is currently on. It might be closer than some think, particularly if Trump's hounds go after Clinton.

[Vague_Boy 10]

Looks like Trump may not get the chance to push the button after all.

 

Kim Jong-un orders North Korea's nuclear arsenal on standby

 

With the Doomsday Clock already at 3 minutes to midnight, things may not hold together long enough for him to be sworn in.

 

(I'm all for stopping Trump but all you need is a lone gunman with a decent rifle, let's not go overboard.)