Support NeoGAF

[Ziltoidia 9]

I think the Charles Blow article is great. I've had a pretty depressing day today tho, and I completely agree with him that Sanders is running out of time. If he is able to get Minni, Colorado, Oklahoma and Mass, then he can have a pitch to the later states to keep watching the race. If not, his supporters are going to stop really paying attention and basically let the nomination go to Clinton. If he can avoid 20-30 point loses in the south on ST, then maybe he can spin it towards "we are moving in the right direction" but I guess we will see. 95% of the coverage is on Trump and the GOP. He really hasn't had a consistent chance to get his word out via national media (besides ad buys) so his ground game is going to come hugely into play.

I'm not too optimistic on his chances, there was a time I felt like the waters were moving in the right direction, but now I feel like the "burn" has had a ocean droped on it via Trump's attention and people forgetting that there is a dem primary going on.

I'm not going to bash Hillary, what is going to happen is just going to happen. I just hope that people don't rub it in too much. I understand that some people have been waiting for this for 8 years, since 2008, so its going to be very cathartic for yall. But just remember, if you didn't support Obama in the 2008 primaries, I bet you support him now.



In other news, big government per-emptively squashing big government? - http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/alabama-passes-law-banning-minimum-wage-increase

 

[RustyNails]

Someone posted that Politico article saying that the establishment was looking into fronting a third party opposition. Rumor it may be, I don't think it's going to be a united front.

If the "establishment" is mounting a "3rd party" run, then it's no longer a 3rd party, it's the establishment. Trump then becomes the 3rd party. Just politricks by GOP to scare Trump backers.

 

[kirblar]

And just to post it for the billionth time- Lead removal from the environment is likely the biggest contributor to the crime rate decline. www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-crime-increase-children-health http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lead-crime_hypothesis

Blood lead levels

The introduction of unleaded fuels reduced airborne lead pollution reducing, in turn, human blood lead levels. In a Swiss study, average blood lead levels dropped almost in half over the ten years after the switch from leaded to unleaded fuels.[7] In the United States, blood lead levels in children dropped by 79% between 1976 and 1991, the period over which leaded fuel was phased out. The same data showed that blood lead levels, although lower, remained higher among minorities and those with lower socioeconomic status

International and local time lags

If the lead-crime hypothesis is true then one of the results would be that nations should not only have blood-lead level and violent crime curves of similar slopes and maxima but that the time gap between the phaseout of lead and the reduction in crime levels should be the same. What's more, since nations introduced and phased out leaded gasoline at different periods we should expect that the width of the crime curves vary only by these factors.

This would be particularly strong evidence for the lead-crime hypothesis because different nations have different social policy. OECD nations had different rates of abortion and abortion access, gun proliferation, racism, income inequality, incarceration, and drug proliferation during their crime waves yet the curves remain inviolate. Moreover, Nevin claims that no nation as of yet breaks the international trend.

The lead-crime hypothesis also holds locally. São Paulo, which as the site of ethanol refineries weaned itself from leaded gasoline years ahead that the rest of Brazil, and homicide rates have plummeted in São Paulo since 2000 despite holding steady in the rest of the country.

-----

I'm not going to bash Hillary, what is going to happen is just going to happen. I just hope that people don't rub it in too much. I understand that some people have been waiting for this for 8 years, since 2008, so its going to be very cathartic for yall. But just remember, if you didn't support Obama in the 2008 primaries, I bet you support him now.

For me, I'm not even that big a Hillary fan- I like her but feel she's a weak candidate, and would have possibly supported a candidate I liked better. (like Obama in '08)

But Bernie Sanders is not that candidate.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

If the "establishment" is mounting a "3rd party" run, then it's no longer a 3rd party, it's the establishment. Trump then becomes the 3rd party. Just politricks by GOP to scare Trump backers.

Call it what you want, that's no united front.

There won't be a third party run. Many will be unhappy, but the RNC will pressure them into keeping quiet until November.

I honestly could see establishment republicans urging people to vote Hillary instead of Trump. Trump represents their destruction, it makes no sense to actually join behind him. Maybe superficially, but not with any actual energy.

 

[RustyNails]

This is what the '90s kids don't understand.

(However, the policies in the '90s were not the cause of the drop- this happened worldwide.)

And I'm not sure how much the Crime bill and Rudy Giulliani's role played in quelling down the violence, at least in NYC. But it might have had some affect. The crime bill also greatly increased the cops on beat, protection gear, vehicles, etc. I've also heard theories about Playstation reducing the crimes too :lol. Basically, gangbangers too busy playing klonoa to sell dope.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

I wish there was a Chris Christie action figure. I want one,

 

[hawk2025]

Tbh, Klonoa IS pretty dope.

 

[Basileus777]

Donald Trump Might Not Keep Paying for His Campaign Himself, Chris Christie Suggests

Of course. Trump has been very frugal with his money, he's not going to fund a GE campaign out of his own pockets.

Someone posted that Politico article saying that the establishment was looking into fronting a third party opposition. Rumor it may be, I don't think it's going to be a united front.

There won't be a third party run. Many will be unhappy, but the RNC will pressure them into keeping quiet until November.

If the "establishment" is mounting a "3rd party" run, then it's no longer a 3rd party, it's the establishment. Trump then becomes the 3rd party. Just politricks by GOP to scare Trump backers.

If it's not the GOP, it's a 3rd party. But it won't happen.

 

[B-Dubs]

And I'm not sure how much the Crime bill and Rudy Giulliani's role played in quelling down the violence, at least in NYC. But it might have had some affect. The crime bill also greatly increased the cops on beat, protection gear, vehicles, etc. I've also heard theories about Playstation reducing the crimes too :lol. Basically, gangbangers too busy playing klonoa to sell dope.

The reduction of lead is also linked to the decrease in crime.

 

[Brawndo Addict]

The context of the lead up to the Iraq War also made it very easy to throw your support behind it but that doesn't mean it wasn't obviously a bad idea. I don't think anyone is arguing that there wasn't a crisis happening in the 90s, they're arguing that some politicians default to what is easy as opposed to what is right.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The lead theory took a massive hit two months ago.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10940-015-9277-2

Abstract

Objectives

This study uses UCR and NCVS crime data to assess which data source appears to be more valid for analyses of long-term trends in crime. The relationships between UCR and NCVS trends in violence and six factors from prior research are estimated to illustrate the impact of data choice on findings about potential sources of changes in crime over time.

Methods

Crime-specific data from the UCR and NCVS for the period 1973–2012 are compared to each other using a variety of correlational techniques to assess correspondence in the trends, and to UCR homicide data which have been shown to be externally valid in comparison with other mortality records. Log-level trend correlations are used to describe the associations between trends in violence, homicide and the potential explanatory factors.

Results

Although long-term trends in robbery, burglary and motor vehicle theft in the UCR and NCVS are similar, this is not the case for rape, aggravated assault, or a summary measure of serious violence. NCVS trends in serious violence are more highly correlated with homicide data than are UCR trends suggesting that the NCVS is a more valid indicator of long-term trends in violence for crimes other than robbery. This is largely due to differences during the early part of the time series for aggravated assault and rape when the UCR data exhibited consistent increases in the rates in contrast to general declines in the NCVS. Choice of data does affect conclusions about the relationships between hypothesized explanatory factors and serious violence. Most notably, the reported association between trends in levels of gasoline lead exposure and serious violence is likely to be an artifact associated with the reliance on UCR data, as it is not found when NCVS or homicide trend data are used.

Conclusions

The weight of the evidence suggests that NCVS data represent more valid indicators of the trends in rape, aggravated assault and serious violence from 1973 to the mid-1980s. Studies of national trends in serious violence that include the 1973 to mid-1980s period should rely on NCVS and homicide data for analyses of the covariates of violent crime trends.

 

[kirblar]

And I'm not sure how much the Crime bill and Rudy Giulliani's role played in quelling down the violence, at least in NYC. But it might have had some affect. The crime bill also greatly increased the cops on beat, protection gear, vehicles, etc. I've also heard theories about Playstation reducing the crimes too :lol. Basically, gangbangers too busy playing klonoa to sell dope.

The issue is that the crime rate drop didn't just happen there. It happened everywhere. Not just in the US- the time lag effect was showing up in all countries that phased out leaded gas. The politicians pointed to their policies, but we're now able to take a wider view and realize something far bigger was going on.

The issue today is that poor neighborhoods (and specifically poor urban minority neighborhoods) are the ones likely to still have high levels of lead in the environment. I'm hoping Flint can be leveraged into a bigger nationwide cleanup program to help keep kids healthier (and out of trouble.)

 

[User 463088]

I think the Charles Blow article is great. I've had a pretty depressing day today tho, and I completely agree with him that Sanders is running out of time. If he is able to get Minni, Colorado, Oklahoma and Mass, then he can have a pitch to the later states to keep watching the race. If not, his supporters are going to stop really paying attention and basically let the nomination go to Clinton. If he can avoid 20-30 point loses in the south on ST, then maybe he can spin it towards "we are moving in the right direction" but I guess we will see. 95% of the coverage is on Trump and the GOP. He really hasn't had a consistent chance to get his word out via national media (besides ad buys) so his ground game is going to come hugely into play.

I'm not too optimistic on his chances, there was a time I felt like the waters were moving in the right direction, but now I feel like the "burn" has had a ocean droped on it via Trump's attention and people forgetting that there is a dem primary going on.

I'm not going to bash Hillary, what is going to happen is just going to happen. I just hope that people don't rub it in too much. I understand that some people have been waiting for this for 8 years, since 2008, so its going to be very cathartic for yall. But just remember, if you didn't support Obama in the 2008 primaries, I bet you support him now.



In other news, big government per-emptively squashing big government? - http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/alabama-passes-law-banning-minimum-wage-increase

I'm not shit posting, so just putting that out there to start.

I actually agree with you. He has to win the states that he's competing in on Super Tuesday. The issue is, though, he's pretty much conceded keeping the margins reasonable. Even if he wins CO, MA, MN and OK, I don't think he can win by a big enough margin to overcome the delegate loss in Texas (let alone Virginia, Georgia and the rest).

This is why I don't understand Devine and Weaver here. I mean, I think their strategy was throw everything at Nevada and hope we win, but they should have had something in place as a plan B. They've just completely written off the south. In a way, winning these heavily white states is as much of a curse as it is a blessing. It reinforces Bernie's demographic issues. He absolutely needed to stay in the south for no other reason that the optics of the whole thing. Bernie's people have put him in the situation in which he has to run the table in the states he's actually competing in. He loses one of those, or heaven forbid two of them, he's in real, real danger. Going 4 and 11 in March is not going to be a great look for his campaign, especially since he's running as an insurgent/outsider.

And, ya, I have been waiting for this for a damn long time. I can't pretend I'm not excited about what I think is going to happen. But, I also promise to be mindful and to try to not come across as a total asshole.

 

[Makai]

I wish there was a Chris Christie action figure. I want one,

Back in his spice mining days

 

[sc0la]

Can some one give me the bulletpoints of the "craziness" that happened in the last two days? I saw that Christie endorsed Trump.

Thanks!

 

[B-Dubs]

The issue is that the crime rate drop didn't just happen there. It happened everywhere. Not just in the US- the time lag effect was showing up in all countries that phased out leaded gas. The politicians pointed to their policies, but we're now able to take a wider view and realize something far bigger was going on.

The issue today is that poor neighborhoods (and specifically poor urban minority neighborhoods) are the ones likely to still have high levels of lead in the environment. I'm hoping Flint can be leveraged into a bigger nationwide cleanup program to help keep kids healthier (and out of trouble.)

In hindsight, absolutely, but at the time? At the time there was no way to know it was the lead, we do know better now though.

EDIT: I must have missed the new data, I feel so shitty.

 

[kirblar]

The lead theory took a massive hit two months ago.

Why on earth wouldn't you cite your source? Also, I remember there being pushback to the pushback.

In hindsight, absolutely, but at the time? At the time there was no way to know it was the lead, we do know better now though.

Exactly, but that's what the '90s kids who are now in their '20s don't understand - they don't have the memory of that era and how bad it was, and how much information we lacked in the pre-internet age.

 

[Tesseract]

This is what the '90s kids don't understand.

(However, the policies in the '90s were not the cause of the drop- this happened worldwide.)

Pretty sure nineties kids know this m8, they are adults now

 

[Basileus777]

The lead theory has been heavily questioned as of late, it's not gospel.

 

[RustyNails]

I dont know guys this lead theory sounds zany, "it's something in the air!" conspiracy to me. I need peer reviewed articles for this. For now I'll be sticking with Guiliani's Broken Window theory and Playstation.

 

[kirblar]

Pretty sure nineties kids know this m8, they are adults now

Knowing on paper is very different from having firsthand experience, because many, many people don't vote/make judgements rationally, but instead on feel/emotion.

 

[sc0la]

Back in his spice mining days

Got a better pic? That man in the suit is blocking most the figure

 

[Armaros]

I'm not shit posting, so just putting that out there to start.

I actually agree with you. He has to win the states that he's competing in on Super Tuesday. The issue is, though, he's pretty much conceded keeping the margins reasonable. Even if he wins CO, MA, MN and OK, I don't think he can win by a big enough margin to overcome the delegate loss in Texas (let alone Virginia, Georgia and the rest).

This is why I don't understand Devine and Weaver here. I mean, I think their strategy was throw everything at Nevada and hope we win, but they should have had something in place as a plan B. They've just completely written off the south. In a way, winning these heavily white states is as much of a curse as it is a blessing. It reinforces Bernie's demographic issues. He absolutely needed to stay in the south for no ther reason that the optics of the whole thing. Bernie's people have put him in the situation in which he has to run the table in the states he's actually competing in. He loses one of those, or heaven forbid two of them, he's in real, real danger. Going 4 and 11 in the March is not going to be a great look for his campaign, especially since he's running as an insurgent/outsider.

And, ya, I have been waiting for this for a damn long time. I can't pretend I'm not excited about what I think is going to happen. But, I also promise to be mindful and to try to not come across as a total asshole.

That's the dilemma he is currently in. He needs to both get blowout victories in the places he is campaigning in and prevent Hillary from absolutely crushing him in the big southern states.

If he loses Georgia and Texas by 30 points, that completely erases any victories in more northern, more white states.

And Hillary is not losing the states he is seriously campaigning in by the same margins even if He pulls through. So she still most likely will split the delegates there.

 

[User 463088]

That's the dilemma he is currently in. He needs to both get blowout victories in the places he is campaigning in and prevent Hillary from absolutely crushing him in the big southern states.

If he loses Georgia and Texas by 30 points, that completely erases any victories in more northern, more white states.

And Hillary is not losing the states he is seriously campaigning in by the same margins even if He pulls through. So she still most likely will split the delegates there.

Exactly. I mean, maybe he wins Mass. Maybe. (I'm highly doubtful, but it definitely could happen.) He's not going to win by more than a few points either way. They'll probably split the delegates. At that point, he's gained nothing. I simply do not understand his campaign's decision to abandon the south...unless the numbers are even worse than the public polls. Even then, though, I don't understand how they think they can be competitive if they lose Texas, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia by double digits. The math makes no sense at all.

 

[Makai]

‏@NateSilver538

People are probably underrating what a shitshow the GOP convention will be, even presuming that it's not contested.

Also to consider: in 2020, Hillary Clinton would be 72, gunning for her party's 4th straight term, possibly quite unpopular. Tough re-elect.

Point here: a lot of professional-class Republicans might be better off opposing Trump and regrouping for 2020 than handing over the party.

The idea that Republican dissenters would rally around Trump relies upon a theory of parties that a Trump nomination will have disproven.

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

Interesting story: MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry walks off show in protest

In an email to her staff that was posted on Medium, Harris-Perry said she felt "worthless" in the eyes of NBC News executives after consecutive weeks in which her show was replaced by general news programming.

The letter, which began "Dearest Nerds," read, "Here is the reality: Our show was taken — without comment or discussion or notice — in the midst of an election season. After four years of building an audience, developing a brand and developing trust with our viewers, we were effectively and utterly silenced."

Harris-Perry's eponymous show, which premiered four years ago, airs on Saturdays and Sundays from 10 a.m. until noon. Diversity has always been a point of pride for Harris-Perry and her producers, and the show has long been a destination for voices and conversations that are rarely, if ever, heard on other television news programs.

 

[Touchdown]

Today has been crazy lol.

 

[exmachina64]

Interesting story: MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry walks off show in protest

Ouch, I was always a fan of hers.

 

[kirblar]

Recent Harvard paper analyzing cities installation of lead pipes in the 20s/30s with their homicide rates- found an increase- http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfeigenbaum/files/feigenbaum_muller_lead_crime.pdf

A growing body of evidence in the social and medical sciences traces high crime rates to high rates of lead exposure. Scholars have shown that lead exposure and crime are positively correlated using data on individuals, cities, counties, states, and nations. Reyes (2007) exploits state-specic reductions in lead exposure due to the Clean Air Act to estimate the causal eect of lead emissions from gasoline on violent crime. She reports that reductions in childhood lead exposure in the 1970s and 1980s accounted for more than half of the violent crime decline of the 1990s. Stretesky and Lynch (2001) estimate that, from 1989 to 1991 counties with air lead levels equivalent to .17 g/m had homicide rates four times as high as counties with air lead levels equivalent to 0 g/m. Mielke and Zahran (2012) show that air lead and aggravated assault rates were strongly associated in a panel of U.S. cities. Longitudinal studies of individuals document a positive relationship between pre- and post-natal lead exposure and delinquency (Dietrich et al. 2001) and arrests for violent offenses (Wright et al. 2008). Cross-sectional research on individuals (Denno 1990; Needleman et al.1996, 2002) and counties (Stretesky and Lynch 2004), studies using cross-national panel data (Nevin 2007), and analyses of national time-series (Nevin 2000) have yielded similar results.

To date, the strength of the literature on lead exposure and crime lies in the fact that its fndings have been replicated at several scales. However, with the exception of Reyes (2007,2015), few previous studies report estimates that can be considered causal, as researchers for obvious ethical reasons cannot randomly expose humans to lead. Credible sources of exogenous variation in lead exposure, meanwhile, are difficult to find. In this paper, we set previous estimates of the lead-crime relationship on firmer causal footing by exploiting exogenous variation in the historical distribution of lead water pipes and the acidity of city water.

This isn't just one study, the issue is that proving exact causation is very difficult, but it's not hard to see that giving all your kids brain damage (most importantly, impulse control problems) via lead poisoning might lead to some very bad things.

And we can tell that the crime rate drop was due to the kids- the juvenile arrest rates were dropping at far higher rates than that of everyone else- https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/jjbul2000_12_3/page6.html

Criminals have been getting older on average because of this.

 

[Grexeno]

‏@NateSilver538

People are probably underrating what a shitshow the GOP convention will be, even presuming that it's not contested.

Also to consider: in 2020, Hillary Clinton would be 72, gunning for her party's 4th straight term, possibly quite unpopular. Tough re-elect.

Point here: a lot of professional-class Republicans might be better off opposing Trump and regrouping for 2020 than handing over the party.

The idea that Republican dissenters would rally around Trump relies upon a theory of parties that a Trump nomination will have disproven.

Some people just can't understand how the demographic death spiral invalidates so much previous election logic.

 

[danm999]

‏@NateSilver538

People are probably underrating what a shitshow the GOP convention will be, even presuming that it's not contested.

Also to consider: in 2020, Hillary Clinton would be 72, gunning for her party's 4th straight term, possibly quite unpopular. Tough re-elect.

Point here: a lot of professional-class Republicans might be better off opposing Trump and regrouping for 2020 than handing over the party.

The idea that Republican dissenters would rally around Trump relies upon a theory of parties that a Trump nomination will have disproven.

If they nominate Trump they won't be able to disavow his rhetoric and racist leanings. You'd effectively be putting a bullet into minority outreach and doing the exact opposite of what they wanted to do post 2012.

On the other hand, they'd effectively be giving away the Supreme Court.

Tough call.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

If they nominate Trump they won't be able to disavow his rhetoric and racist leanings. You'd effectively be putting a bullet into minority outreach and doing the exact opposite of what they wanted to do post 2012.

On the other hand, they'd effectively be giving away the Supreme Court.

Tough call.

Utah would be mildly interesting if the Democrats could get some JBE tier candidates.

Not sure Chaffetz is winning re-election against a good, centrist Democrat after a bunch of attack ads where Chaffetz praises Trump while Trump uses a bunch of vulgarity and bashes the LDS church. Trump is so hated in Utah and the people here don't even know that he hates Mormons yet.

Hopefully Doug Owens can beat Mia Love at least.

 

[Rubenov]

PoliGAF... what odds do you give Bernie on winning Maine on March 6?

 

[RustyNails]

‏@NateSilver538 Point here: a lot of professional-class Republicans might be better off opposing Trump and regrouping for 2020 than handing over the party.

Guess who said the same thing, but in October 2015?

The establishment lost control of the party long time ago. Look at the Congress. It's a microcosm of what's about to happen in the country. If they pull anything close to what you just described, that would destroy the party worse than anything imaginable. You are risking everything including alienating the primary voterbase (which has delivered the Congress to GOP time and again) by betting the entire farm on a scab like Rubio who will get buried by Hillary in few months. If they are smart, they will let Trump become the nominee and lose to Hillary, and recalibrate for 2020. Any stunt will burn the party to the ground.

 

[B-Dubs]

PoliGAF... what odds do you give Bernie on winning Maine on March 6?

If he didn't win I'd be shocked.

Guess who said the same thing, but in October 2015?

PoliGAF as a whole is like 6 months ahead of Nate this cycle when it comes to Trump. It's just sad.

 

[Makai]

Guess who said the same thing, but in October 2015?

No, Nate's saying they should pull a stunt.

 

[gutter_trash]

PoliGAF... what odds do you give Bernie on winning Maine on March 6?

pretty, pretty, pretty good
he will sweep the Tri-State area

 

[Rubenov]

If he didn't win I'd be shocked.

I thought so too, but the prediction markets are sort of iffy on this, and I think it has to do with the fact that there's only one poll that shows a dead heat (granted it was done in October last year), and that it happens after Super Tuesday where he will likely get wrecked and give Hillary some momentum.

I just went with my gut/instincts/demographics without much else and put some money down... but now I'm nervous, heh.

 

[RustyNails]

No, Nate's saying they should pull a stunt.

Wait, how can you be better off opposing Trump and recalibrate for 2020 and pull stunt at the same time? Pulling any stunt will fracture the party, as Brawndo Addict mentioned.

 

[teiresias]

‏@NateSilver538

People are probably underrating what a shitshow the GOP convention will be, even presuming that it's not contested.

Also to consider: in 2020, Hillary Clinton would be 72, gunning for her party's 4th straight term, possibly quite unpopular. Tough re-elect.

Point here: a lot of professional-class Republicans might be better off opposing Trump and regrouping for 2020 than handing over the party.

The idea that Republican dissenters would rally around Trump relies upon a theory of parties that a Trump nomination will have disproven.

And Reagan was older, I love how this is an issue with Hillary and disregards the older male Presidents. That's even disregarding the fact that women tend to live longer than men anyway. I also love the "possibly quite unpopular", if that's anything like his predictions about Trump "possibly not being the nominee" I'm going to assume she'll be more popular at the end of her first term than she is now.

Also, there's nothing to keep Trump for continuously running in GOP primaries. His "audience" (for lack of a better term) almost seems like their crazy enough to go along for the ride of him making more multiple runs even after losing a GE.

 

[Basileus777]

No, Nate's saying they should pull a stunt.

Which is stupid because it'd legitimize Trump's supporters who would blame the party for sabotaging Trump. You think all that sentiment would die in 4 years afterwards if the RNC screwed him?

 

[B-Dubs]

I thought so too, but the prediction markets are sort of iffy on this, and I think it has to do with the fact that there's only one poll that shows a dead heat (granted it was done in October last year), and that it goes after Super Tuesday where he will likely get wrecked and give Hillary some momentum.

I just went with my gut/instincts/demographics without much else and put some money down... but now I'm nervous, heh.

I'm in one of those situations with Texas. I know the numbers all say Cruz is up, but something in my gut just says Trump will do better than expected. I just can't parse if it's just wishful thinking or I'm onto something.

 

[Makai]

Wait, how can you be better off opposing Trump and recalibrate for 2020 and pull stunt at the same time?

The idea is to actively distance yourself from Trump. Denounce him in the general, possibly run a third party. Then run a "real" Republican in 2020 after Trump loses. That's what Nate's saying.

 

[Rubenov]

pretty, pretty, pretty good
he will sweep the Tri-State area

Cool. I'm keeping my bets. This is fun but nerve-wracking.

 

[kirblar]

Hillary being a one-termer by choice is a real possibility.

 

[Brinbe]

They're better off giving Trump the keys to the bus on fire and starting their own party. They're stuck. Hijacking the process during a convention is gonna lead to a revolt anyway. And once he becomes the nominee the GOP/Republican name is mud. It's better to just start over and let Trump have it and lead it to oblivion.

 

[Slacker]

Interesting story: MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry walks off show in protest

Isn't every host on MSNBC being preempted for election coverage? I usually listen to the Rachel Maddow show on podcast and it's been missing a lot lately.

 

[Basileus777]

The idea is to actively distance yourself from Trump. Denounce him in the general, possibly run a third party. Then run a "real" Republican in 2020 after Trump loses. That's what Nate's saying.

That's not recalibration, that's dismemberment. And it wouldn't be over by 2020.

 

[Makai]

They're better off giving Trump the keys to the bus on fire and starting their own party.

How would they even do that? They lose all that party infrastructure. And they can't just peacefully split it with the Trumplicans either.

 

[Rubenov]

I'm in one of those situations with Texas. I know the numbers all say Cruz is up, but something in my gut just says Trump will do better than expected. I just can't parse if it's just wishful thinking or I'm onto something.

I feel you, but I still think Cruz wins it because he has an Army that's been working Texas hard to get that vote. The polls showing Cruz with a nice lead are just the cherry on top.

He used a similar approach in Iowa to excellent results.