[Ghost Spaghetti]

There are three outcomes I can see.

Option 1) The Republican Caucuses stop Trump from getting the GOP nomination, he throws his toys out of the pram and stands as an independent. The next recession hits and Hilary Clinton gets punished by the Democrats for letting it happen while she was a part of the Cabinet. Bernie is the Democratic candidate. Trump splits the Right-wing vote and Bernie is elected.

Option 2) Trump gets the nomination, the recession hits, Trump uses it to pound the democrats (whoever is nominated) and limps over the line. Global depression follows. Wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc.

3) Trump is nominated, the recession doesn't hit (or is shallower than predicated) Hillary uses it as a demonstration of the government of which she's a part's handling of the crisis, secures the Democratic nomination and strolls comfortably into the Oval Office.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Not quite sure what you are getting at here Sexy but I'll hazard a guess and you can put me right with bullet points (I know you like that) should you so wish.

Bernie as I understand from the little I've read will put up taxes, especially on the rich and very rich, but also make sure that the corporations don't get away with screwing the system and also make them pay a living wage of $15.
Now I know some will cry ruin and head for the hills but a moderate redistribution of wealth will put more back in the system, the tax to be spent on infrastructure and jobs, simple, world sorted.
What bothers me is the legions of dumb poor, bamboozled by the Republicans into paying for the rich by voting for continual cuts to their services via tax breaks for the rich, just because they hate gays and abortion, or believe Obama is a Muslim, despite people like Romney quite openly saying the lower 47%  are not his concern, even worse the bigger share who just don't vote at all.

[Pete Svarrior]

Bernie as I understand from the little I've read will put up taxes, especially on the rich and very rich, but also make sure that the corporations don't get away with screwing the system and also make them pay a living wage of $15.

And give them free everything. Let's not forget that part.

But yeah, I like the $15/hr idea, too. It's been a while since we saw some hilarious hyperinflation, and it would help prevent another Democratic fiasco for generations to come. Overall, a good long-term outcome.

What bothers me is the legions of dumb poor, bamboozled by the Republicans into paying for the rich by voting for continual cuts to their services via tax breaks for the rich, just because they hate gays and abortion, or believe Obama is a Muslim, despite people like Romney quite openly saying the lower 47%  are not his concern, even worse the bigger share who just don't vote at all.

Or, you know, perhaps some people aren't fans of socialism. Wealth redistribution is only good for you if you're underperforming.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Well there's a thought, under-performing. 3.32 billion people, nearly half the world living on less than $2.50 a day, the under performing shiftless bastards, what with the poorest 40% living on 5% of the worlds income, while the top 20% (winning!) having ¾, why don't they get off their asses and do some work, I mean warren Buffet made $815 million, Larry Ellison $915M, today! (26/1/16 Forbes) So it can't be hard.
The scales have fallen from my eyes sexy, $15 a day, what was I thinking, where could that possibly come from. 

[garygreen]

free shit forever?  i think a fairer criticism would be that his proposals are pretty expensive. 

Yes. Remember the part where I said you can't have free shit forever?

lol i get the gag, i just think it's off the mark.  regardless of what bernie himself might say about the net effects, i don't think it's possible to pay for those policies without the middle class bearing a not-insignificant part of the tax burden.  i think that's the 'referendum' that underlies his bid to be president: more taxes, more services.  personally i'm down with it, but i don't think it's unreasonable not to be.  i think it's ultimately shortsighted, but i sympathize.

[Pete Svarrior]

lol i get the gag, i just think it's off the mark.  regardless of what bernie himself might say about the net effects, i don't think it's possible to pay for those policies without the middle class bearing a not-insignificant part of the tax burden.  i think that's the 'referendum' that underlies his bid to be president: more taxes, more services.  personally i'm down with it, but i don't think it's unreasonable not to be.  i think it's ultimately shortsighted, but i sympathize.

Honestly, we seem to be basically in agreement here. I'm just a bit more violent about my convictions.

[Lord Dave]

Trump is still leading by a large margin.  WTF?

Seriously, could he actually win the caucus and become the GOP candidate?

[sandokhan]

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/stories/9970/one-chart-predicting-next-president

http://www.fastcompany.com/3054762/elasticity/heres-why-polls-are-so-bad-at-predicting-election-results

[Pete Svarrior]

Donald "No Fucks Given" J. Trump strikes again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35416625

[sandokhan]

"I figured I would have spent about $10 million by this point, right? I've spent nothing! I've spent nothing!" he exclaimed in an August interview on the Fox Business Network. "I've spent zero! I mean, zero!"

(D. Trump, October 2015)

Two months later, Trump did not spend the smallest fraction of his $300 million in available cash.

In fact, there is no indication that he has any intention of actually doing so.

In a recent CNN interview, when asked that he might need to spend one billion dollars to run against the Democratic candidate, Trump was visibly uncomfortable with the question, and tried to divert the discussion to another issue.

[Rushy]

Trump won the last Republican debate before the Iowa Caucus by not being there.

[Pete Svarrior]

The fate of the US presidential race depends on one age-old question:

Will /pol/'s love of Trump force them to get out of their homes and attend the primaries/caucuses?

[Rushy]

The fate of the US presidential race depends on one age-old question:

Will /pol/'s love of Trump force them to get out of their homes and attend the primaries/caucuses?

I guess we'll find out Monday if Trump's poll data is legit or it's just 4chan gaming the system again.

[Lord Dave]

Would be feared by US enemies...
Well, yeah.  Once the world is the US's enemy, everyone's gonna be afraid of him.

[Rushy]

Iowa caucus tonight, should have the results by 2300 central time zone. Everyone pray for god-emperor Trump's success.

[Lord Dave]

The Iowa caucus is hailed as some kind of first test but it's small, mainly white farmers.  Hardly a telling example of a candidate's standing.

Still, I'm worried Trump will make it.

[markjo]

Iowa caucus tonight, should have the results by 2300 central time zone. Everyone pray for god-emperor Trump's success.

Nope.  Looks like Cruz pulled off the upset.

Cruz (won)    27.7%
Trump    24.4%
Rubio    23.1%
Carson    9.3%
Paul       4.5%
Bush       2.8%
Kasich    1.9%
Fiorina    1.9%
Christie    1.8%
Huckabee    1.8%
Santorum    1%
Gilmore    0%

[sandokhan]

You understand as much about economics as you do about any other topic.

Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82880#msg82880

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82620#msg82620

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg86809#msg86809

[Lord Dave]

You understand as much about economics as you do about any other topic.

Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82880#msg82880

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82620#msg82620

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg86809#msg86809

Congratulations.  You were right by 3%.
I'm shocked.
/sarcasm

[Rushy]

How is he right? He never once said who would win Iowa.