Who is the best candidate in the presidential race?

MPR News Staff Jan 11, 2016
39

“Three weeks until the first presidential nominating contest, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are running neck and neck in Iowa, while Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are also locked in a tight race in the Hawkeye State,” writes NBC’s Mark Murray.

“What’s more, Clinton and Sanders are within the margin of error in New Hampshire, while Trump has built a 16-point lead in the same state.”

Today’s Question: Who do you think is the best candidate in the presidential race?

  • Ruckabumpkus

    Hillary Clinton is definitely the least bad.

    • Gary F

      Really? Wow.

      • Ruckabumpkus

        Really. As long as Sanders calls himself a socialist, he’s unelectable, and O’Malley is a lightweight. As for the Gang of Oligarchic Plutocrats, don’t make me laugh.

    • Pearly

      She does put her pants suit on one leg at a time just like the rest of us

  • whitedoggie44

    John Casich-govenor of Ohio. Experienced and pragmatic- reasons he will not be the candidate

    • Kent Merkey

      Kasich. Not Casich.

      • whitedoggie44

        Thanks-late night

  • lindblomeagles

    It should really be Hillary who has been Lady Governor, First Lady (President), Senator, AND Secretary of State – she should be aware of state issues (Arkansas), national issues (Senator and Office of the President), and international issues (Secretary of State). But people for good and bad reasons have given her no credit really for being the first American woman to accomplish all of these things and the experience she brings to the national stage. Bernie is a nice guy, but he’s been more rogue than consensus builder and Vermont is not a huge state. Trump is a businessman who has no clue about national and international administration. Cruz is from Texas, but the last 3 Texas Presidents did not end their terms on the best of terms. Rubio won’t defend Latinos against Trump so I can’t really by into him. And everyone else is a deep distant fifth or more behind these four.

  • PaulJ

    The one that spends the most on TV commercials.

  • MrE85

    “Best” is a somewhat loaded term, but I’ve made my choice. It will be interesting to see if a majority of Americans agree with me. I’m 5-5 in picking winners.

  • Gary F

    MoveOn.org is going with Sanders. I see Biden gave Bernie some favorable talk yesterday. Hillary is really moving leftward, lots of talk sticking it to the rich folks. Bill Clinton in the spotlight for all his zipper problems and the fact the Hillary knew and put up with them. FBI says it has enough evidence on Hillary to prosecute. Which old and white person are the Dems going to choose?

    • Ruckabumpkus

      When you assert, “FBI says it has enough evidence on Hillary to prosecute,” are you citing a comment by an official FBI spokesperson? If not, then the “FBI” is not saying that.

  • Gary F
    • MrE85

      When they start representing Germany, and not the United States? We have plenty of issues at home to discuss without looking to Cologne.

      • Gary F

        A couple of weeks ago, accepting Syrian refugees was all the rage. What happened? Why did it fall out of the news cycle? Because it’s not a great idea? Or because Trump actually made some sense?

  • Rich in Duluth

    I will be voting for a Democrat. Despite the phony populist rhetoric from the Republicans, the policies of the Democrats favor the average citizen more by promoting safety nets for the disadvantaged, elderly, and disabled, civil rights for minorities, women’s rights, alternative energy, the environment, science, and increasing taxes on the rich.

    I prefer Sanders, because of his positions on tuition free higher education, Medicare for all, his intent to break up the “too big to fail” banks, his proposal to build coalitions with foreign countries to solve world problems rather than the “go it alone” policies of the past, among other issues.

    • whitedoggie44

      Though I would never vote for a democrat, my concern with Bernie is his rhetoric that all his programs are free. All he needs to do is confiscate income and wealth from the “rich”. The issue is the math will never work. Just like Every socialist before him, once he runs out of other people money to spend, we will require a Maggie Thatcher to pull us from oblivion.

      • Rich in Duluth

        Everything any government does is done by “confiscating” “other peoples money”, through taxes. This is the way it’s supposed to work.

        If you look at the Sanders web site , it shows in detail how his programs are paid for. For example, taxing Wall Street speculators, lifting the cap on Social Security payroll taxes, and negotiating prices for Medicare Part D drug costs, to name a few.

        • whitedoggie44

          The problem is you and sanders assume there will not be a counter action to big government taking more of my income and wealth. Most research prices this is not correct, that those with merit will adjust their behavior. Take a long look at socialism in the UK in the 1970’s. Bernie believes any wealth accumulation is evil, he rips corporations every chance he can and also appears to believe in mob rule for Wall Street and not the rule of law. His math just does not work unless you believe we are all monkeys who will not change our behavior as big government confiscates more and more income.

          • Ruckabumpkus

            You seem to be one of those misguided folks who thinks wealth necessarily follows merit. If that were true, the banksters who drove the economy into the ditch in ’08 would all be begging for handouts on the street corners (instead of in congressional offices).

          • whitedoggie44

            Wealth absolutely follows merit and intelligence.

          • Ruckabumpkus

            So, Joaquín (“El Chapo”) Guzmán amassed his great wealth because of his meritorious deeds and business acumen? Here, I thought it was because he’s a ruthless thug. Silly me!

          • Sue de Nim

            Seems to me, that’s only true if you define “merit and intelligence” in terms of one’s skill in obtaining wealth. Under the usual meanings of those English words, however, your statement is patently ridiculous. Most folks would see a lot of merit in doing meaningful work that doesn’t pay huge salaries (teachers, for instance), and the wisest people I know have all come to realize that wealth, measured in dollars, correlates very poorly with happiness and well-being.

          • whitedoggie44

            As a highly educated,high income individual I can only say wealth makes misery more bearable. Do not know who made the statement but do agree, “If you are born poor It is not your fault. If you die poor, it’s Absolutly your fault. Enjoy poverty my far left democratic friends!

          • Rich in Duluth

            What “counter action” to a “fraction of a percent” tax?

            I don’t understand your second sentence.

            Is this a quote from Bernie that excess wealth accumulation is evil? And corporations that (not who) send jobs overseas, don’t pay their share of taxes and expect to be bailed out when their greedy directors make risky decisions, deserve to be ripped. “Mob rule” on Wall Street?

          • whitedoggie44

            My point here is that study after study by economist prove that wealthy people do change their behavior when faced with wealth and income confiscation. As this behavior changes, Bernie, will have less revenue to create his utopia of an enlarged moocher class of citizens dependent on big government. If you look at the State of California, one reason they had such a severe reduction of revenue in 2008, is their economic model depended on the wealthy for state tax revenues. In many cases, the wealthy are dependent on stock appreciation and dividends as an income source. When this vanished, the states revenue was impacted. Bernie is assuming the wealthy are like oil wells, a bottomless pit of revenue. The fair share in taxes is a bunch of crap which pulls uneducated envious power ball seekers into his orbit.

          • Rich in Duluth

            Ok, “study after study”….which ones? How do they address the specifics of Bernie’s proposals? Bernie has his own economic studies that say his proposals will work.

            2008 was the start of the Great Recession. Every state had a “severe reduction of revenue”.

            Oh, and none of the liberals I know buy lottery tickets.

          • whitedoggie44

            Rich-I wish I had more time to provide details, but you accept the proposals from a man who spent his honeymoon in the Soviet Union. Take a look at the problems with veterans health care and then add Union thugs to the equation and now you have berniecare.

          • Rich in Duluth

            aaaah…sorry, you lost me with “honeymoon in the Soviet Union”. And, “berniecare” is Medicare for All. I have Medicare, I like it, and I haven’t seen a single “Union thug”.

          • whitedoggie44

            Bernie’s single payer system would be a good example of how his “math” is false. Kaiser Permanente estimated the cost of bernie’s plan at $1 trillion a year or $10 trillion over 10 years. Add in inflation and the plan’s cost is $15 trillion over 10 years. There are three current reimbursement methods for doctors and hospitals, medicaid, medicare and private heath insurance. Bernie’s plan assumes the lowest reimbursement rate, which according the KP would likely bankrupt hundreds if not thousands of hospitals in the US. In the “real” world of economics it is called the law of unintended consequences. Liberals don’t care about the numbers, just the rhetoric. Bernie believes the rich are a bottomless pit of cash sort of like Venezuela and the bottomless pit of oil revenue. Inflation now exceed 145% and their economy has shrunk 8% the past 4 years. Welcome to Bernie socialism.

          • Ruckabumpkus

            If that logic were correct, Canada’s health care system shouldn’t work, and its architect, Tommy Douglas, wouldn’t be widely regarded as a national hero. Its true that many Canadians love to complain about their system, but the complaints are mostly about technical aspects of how the system is implemented, not the single payer system itself. Ask some Canadians at random if they’d like to trade their system for ours, and most of them would look at you like you’re crazy or assume you’re joking. The only bankruptcies that would occur if we were to move to a Canadian-style single payer system would be among profiteering corporations. America pays far more for health care per captia than any other country and is getting worse results than many (including Canada). No one who isn’t self-deceived actually believes that America is getting its money’s worth for the 10s of $trillions it’s currently paying to big pharma, medical device manufacturers, big hospital chains, and, of course, insurance providers.

          • whitedoggie44

            It does not work! When the government till runs dry, citizens need to wait which is why they come to the U.S. for treatment. Instead of a large insurance company telling you “no” you now have big government telling you “no”. Imagine a gigantic bureaucracy trying to manage this process with all the compassion of the IRS? For those of us who work and have great health care through our employer, health care works great. Its the moochers that have the problem.

          • Ruckabumpkus

            That’s not what my Canadian friends tell me. True, wealthy Canadians sometimes choose to go to the States for treatment, but most Canadians are satisfied with their system (or at least less dissatisfied than most Americans are with theirs). And if you think a for-profit corporation has any more compassion than the IRS, you’re delusional.

          • Sue de Nim

            Moochers? How about corporate execs that rake in huge salaries without actually adding anything of value to the health care system? Or big banksters and Wall Street money shufflers, who don’t actually produce anything but still manage to “earn” multi-million dollar “compensation packages”?

          • Rich in Duluth

            Actually, Bernie’s people think the cost of health care in the U.S. is more like $3-trillion per year. Bernie shows that the cost would be covered, not by taking away all the poor rich man’s money, but by a 2.2% health care premium on workers, 6.2% payroll tax on employers, an adjustment in tax rates to 37% for the $250k – $500K incomes, and an estate tax on the very wealthy. People making $10-million/year would pay 52% income tax. This is about 40% less than they were taxed after WWII, a time of a booming economy.

            As for hospitals going bankrupt, until the American people actually know the cost of healthcare services, a closely held secret, how can actual costs be determined to see just who and why a facility might go bankrupt? I see my doctors sending huge bills to Medicare and my supplemental insurance company. Usually, these bills are reduced significantly by agreements w/ Medicare and the insurance company. As far as I can tell, the healthcare system we frequent is doing just fine. They have been putting up new parking lots and remodeling for some years, now, so they must anticipate plenty of income in the future.

          • whitedoggie44

            Even the liberal star and tribune stated ” Bernie’s spending plan will bankrupt the U.S.” Last review I read by RAND, Bernie’s spending plan had exceeded $30 Trillion over 10 years, over an above current spending. eve if comrade Bernie confiscates every last dime of earned income from the top 5%, there will still be a huge deficit. Watch the math not the rhetoric. Bernie is counting on lots of stupid people who believe everything is “free”, when in fact someone somewhere needs to pay for these programs.

          • Rich in Duluth

            Well, I don’t see myself as “stupid” and I know that nothing is “free”. The fact is that the U.S. is already spending $3-trillion per year on healthcare and the country isn’t going bankrupt. That’s with about with about 10% of the population not getting healthcare. Even if that $3-trillion were increased to $3.3-trillion, that’s still only 18% of GDP, and most of that is being spent, now. Bernie’s plan just moves around the money and puts more of the burden of healthcare on those of us who can afford it.

            And, tell me, what purpose does an insurance company serve? Why should I pay an insurance company for healthcare, when I (all of us) could just pay a set fee, based on income. What do I get from the insurance company that justifies their huge profits? Why are they even in the mix? I want healthcare from the healthcare system, not insurance.

        • whitedoggie44

          I just reviewed sanders web site and true to form, he has not come close to identifying the revenue required for his takeover of the US economy.

          Look at the facts here don’t just listen to his rhetoric. I repeat, his math simply does not work

          Nothing more than expansion of the moocher class-penalize success and reward failure

          • Rich in Duluth

            Sorry, I just don’t understand your argument. Did you not look at his “Issues” page? There, under “It’s time to make College, Tuition Free…” Sanders quotes $75-billion per year for his higher education plan. He says he’ll get that by a “fraction of a percent” tax on Wall Street speculators, who are not being taxed, now. So, he’s specified a cost and a source of money. He also specifies a big benefit, educating people who want a college education and preparing them for the jobs of the future, without staggering debt. How is that bad? College educated people make more money than non college people, thus have a higher standard of living and pay higher taxes than most non college people.

            Saying over and over that his math is bad does not explain how his math “does not work”. And, if people get a higher education, are then qualified for better jobs, how does this expand the “moocher class”?