Yes, as an RNC shill said on MSNBC last night.
"If your last name starts with Tru then you are not eligible to be the 2016 GOP nominee."
Yes, as an RNC shill said on MSNBC last night.
"If your last name starts with Tru then you are not eligible to be the 2016 GOP nominee."
A lack of passion for Clinton led to her defeat, said Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginias Center for Politics. While Clinton is going to be the nominee, barring an FBI intervention, Sanders has won the hearts of Democrats in a way Clinton never will. Even after 40 years of practice, her candidate skills are third-rate.
Sabato suggested her best hope of winning the presidency is facing off against GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.
Shed better hope the eventual Republican nominee generates deep fear and loathing among the electorate, because thats her ticket to victory, Sabato said. It will never be her own ability to connect and excite.
Luckily for her, that precise scenario is easy to imagine.
He could have been first except Perry got indicted lol
He dumped out after watching Trump at that first debate and seeing everyones poll numbers vaporize as Trump shot up. Must have had visions of six more months of it.
True, he was out of money temporarily. But he was still top five in the polls, and had a bunch of PAC money. Yet he pulled the trigger, while Graham and Pataki almost hung in until Iowa, and Santorum almost hung in until NH. And those three guys were polling a combined 0% at one point.
He dropped out after getting 0.5% in a national poll after the second debate. That's brutal.He could have been first except Perry got indicted lol
He dumped out after watching Trump at that first debate and seeing everyones poll numbers vaporize as Trump shot up. Must have had visions of six more months of it.
True, he was out of money temporarily. But he was still top five in the polls, and had a bunch of PAC money. Yet he pulled the trigger, while Graham and Pataki almost hung in until Iowa, and Santorum almost hung in until NH. And those three guys were polling a combined 0% at one point.
EDIT: lol on the day Walker dropped out the RCP average in Iowa was:
Trump 28 - Carson 23 - Cruz 8 - Rubio 5 - Bush 5 - Carly 5 - Walker 5 - Huckabee 4
So let's assume Trump gets the delegate count he needs. Can the party still just completely overwrite the rules to block him?
If Marco drops I can see Ted winning Florida just by grabbing Rubio voters am I wrong?
This would require delegates pledged to Trump to vote to change the rules to thwart Trump.So let's assume Trump gets the delegate count he needs. Can the party still just completely overwrite the rules to block him?
Scott Walker hit 0% in the polls after the second debate.
One poll. And the only place to go was back up. Jim Gilmore proved that. I see Scott Walker as a Jim Gilmore type who is stronger the lower he gets. All the more power behind his burst upwards in the polls.He dropped out after getting 0.5% in a national poll after the second debate. That's brutal.
If Bernie hadn't let Clinton run up delegates all across the South, risk-free, then he'd probably have a good chance at winning the nomination. Oh well.
Maybe they can get one of his relatives at the convention."If your last name starts with Tru then you are not eligible to be the 2016 GOP nominee."
I don't think it will. Police brutality and guns are a lot bigger here. Plus she's got the support of not only the mayor but the governor and those two can't agree on shit. deBlasio is basically everything Bernie supporters wish he was.
You know what? A couple of hours ago, I had a revelation that if Bernie wins the nomination, I'm going to vote for Trump. I would rather throw the election to the republicans for four years and let them continue to destroy their own party and embitter Americans than let Bernie complete the polarization of the democratic party the same way the wingnut-right has completed theirs. Then we can let Clinton run again in 4 years and save the country, and Sanders will be dead by then. That's how I feel.
Bernie Sanders is a demagogue. He's wrong about everything, he's impervious to facts, he's excessively reductionist, he's unqualified, and the worst thing of all: he's not even a Democrat. If you want to run the progressive movement into the ground and see meaningful college reform, financial system reform, and healthcare reform all disappear in front of our very eyes, go ahead and vote Sanders. Me, the only president I would be happy with is currently the only Democrat running for office.
Lol, I forgot about JayDubya. Didn't he get banned in an abortion thread our something forever ago? I might have only been a lurker back then. Also yeah, Benji has definitely become one of my favorite posters in any political thread.I must say, Benji, that after years and years of JayDubya shitting in and derailing every single political thread with long-winded libertarian rants, it's refreshing to have a resident libertarian who basically "gets" that his philosophy doesn't have a lot of traction and just has fun with shitting on the hypocrisies of the mainstream, instead. It's entertaining, it's informative, and it's a unique niche. Kudos.
This would require delegates pledged to Trump to vote to change the rules to thwart Trump.
Here's CNN polls for the Dem side. Looks good for Clinton but after last night...CNN polls for Ohio and Florida:
Ohio:
Trump: 41
Kasich: 35
Cruz: 15
Rubio: 7
Florida:
Trump: 40
Rubio: 24
Cruz: 19
Kasich 5
This is going to be close but it could be over in six days...
Just because delegates are pledged to Trump doesn't necessarily mean they support Trump. If they were to become unbound...There's no reasonable rule set that would prevent a simple majority from winning the nomination.
I don't want to be too much of a...lookist...but Walker is and forever will be too dopey looking to be a serious Presidential candidate. He lacks the charm needed to offset that.
Here's CNN polls for the Dem side. Looks good for Clinton but after last night...
OH:
63% Clinton
33% Sanders
FL:
61% Clinton
34% Sanders
Let's dispel with this notion that this wasn't going to happen, this was always going to happenhttp://www.nationalreview.com/article/432528/donald-trump-michigan-win-shows-general-election-appeal
Is the National Review coming back around to Trump????
It is a super weak argument. Trump did well in Michigan, they'll say! That means he'll be competitive in the general election!"x wins y state shows their general election appeal" is kind of a bad argument. I mean, Trump dominated in Massachusetts and Clinton in South Carolina, but those states aren't voting for the Republican or Democrat, respectively.
I already did this!Given how the 21 point advantage in Michigan for Hillary turned into a 3 point lead for Bernie, it's safe to say the polls actually look like this:
OH:
57% Sanders
43% Clinton
FL:
58% Sanders
42% Clinton
Idontknowwhattobelieveanymore
Some polling of California on the Republican side (about Cruz vs. Trump) would be kind of nice... still a long way away, but important.
Is there a link to this WSJ poll?
What do people here say is the most probable way fore the Republican establishment to stop Trump? Have Rubio and/or Kasich drop out after they lose their home states to coalesce around Cruz? Tell Rubio and/or Kasich stay in after losing their home states to siphon off enough delegates to prevent Trump from getting enough to set up a contested convention?
What do people here say is the most probable way fore the Republican establishment to stop Trump? Have Rubio and/or Kasich drop out after they lose their home states to coalesce around Cruz? Tell Rubio and/or Kasich stay in after losing their home states to siphon off enough delegates to prevent Trump from getting enough to set up a contested convention?
I wouldn't assume they don't prefer Trump to Cruz.What do people here say is the most probable way for the Republican establishment to stop Trump? Have Rubio and/or Kasich drop out after they lose their home states to coalesce around Cruz? Tell Rubio and/or Kasich stay in after losing their home states to siphon off enough delegates to prevent Trump from getting enough to set up a contested convention? Is it already too late and they would have to change convention rules?
What do people here say is the most probable way fore the Republican establishment to stop Trump? Have Rubio and/or Kasich drop out after they lose their home states to coalesce around Cruz? Tell Rubio and/or Kasich stay in after losing their home states to siphon off enough delegates to prevent Trump from getting enough to set up a contested convention?
Yeah. You are approaching death of the party status via internal civil war when a plurality if not majority of the base is disenfranchised by the "establishment" though.
Kasich and Rubio still wouldn't get that many delegates if they stayed in and open up the possibilities of Drumpf winning WTA states like Arizona and Wisconsin.
Getting 100% behind Cruz and hoping that Cruz can make up for the historic beatdowns Drumpf will give him in Pennsylvania and New York by winning the West might be the best bet to stop Drumpf, but that involves Cruz winning the nomination.
I should have prefaced with assuming the GOP would prefer Cruz to Trump. I know there are mixed signals to that, but Lindsey Graham saying people should rally around Cruz is a sign to me who they prefer.I wouldn't assume they don't prefer Drumpf to Cruz.
Drumpf is a well-known quantity. He's run in these faux-elite circles for decades. He's the muscle.
Rubio is the looks.
Kasich is the brains.
Cruz is the wild card.
Jeb! was the useless chick.
I used to wonder if Scott Walker got out too soon, but now I wonder if he dropped out just in time. Nobody is going to associate him with everything that happened post-Drumpf. He completely avoided all the Drumpf machine gun fire.
A whole bunch of his short-term rivals like Rubio, Jindal, Rand, Christie, etc. have basically taken themselves out. (Except Jim Gilmore obviously.) And unlike most of them Walker will just be coming out of office in 2019.
Assuming he turns down the compromise candidate offering at the convention of course.
Yeah. You are approaching death of the party status via internal civil war when a plurality if not majority of the base is disenfranchised by the "establishment" though.
What do people here say is the most probable way for the Republican establishment to stop Drumpf? Have Rubio and/or Kasich drop out after they lose their home states to coalesce around Cruz? Tell Rubio and/or Kasich stay in after losing their home states to siphon off enough delegates to prevent Drumpf from getting enough to set up a contested convention? Is it already too late and they would have to change convention rules?
Here's CNN polls for the Dem side. Looks good for Clinton but after last night...
OH:
63% Clinton
33% Sanders
FL:
61% Clinton
34% Sanders
Mitch McConnell might want to rethink his position. Seriously.ABC: Hillary up 50-41 over Trump in ABC poll, 67% of voters dislike Trump and 56% strongly dislike Trump. He's the most unpopular national candidate in ABC's history of polling.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chal...avorability-attributes-poll/story?id=37500382
I think a lot of the establishment sees Trump becoming the face of the party as also being a death of the party style event though. People routinely compare that guy to Hitler. I don't think there's any way they could scrub that back out of their party. Can't put the genie back in the bottle, other metaphors. This is true whether he wins or loses in the General, imo. The damage is going to be lasting no matter what. Insane as it sounds, it might be in the establishment's best interest to sabotage themselves this General just to cut the rot out of their party while they still have some slim chance of salvaging themselves.
Basically, my diagnosis of the Republican party is
At least at the national level and I have no idea what happens downticket if things fall apart at higher levels. Does it just chain-reaction all the way down or do local people just really quickly whip the (R) off the end of their name and everything continues as before? I don't really know...interesting times we live in.
Republicans aren't like Democrats, they don't take top-down marching orders from the Party like all the Hillary supporters have.Why care about pissing them off? In a 2 party system, the fringe has to just suck it up and pick the closest ideological party anyway, so don't worry about courting them. You end the obstruction in Congress, roll up your sleeves, get a few things done, and point at the previous Congress as being a shitshow. Make it loud and clear that the Tea Party stuff failed. Who cares how they feel, they're voting R every time anyway.
ABC: Hillary up 50-41 over Trump in ABC poll, 67% of voters dislike Trump and 56% strongly dislike Trump. He's the most unpopular American politician in ABC's history of polling.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chal...avorability-attributes-poll/story?id=37500382
Well the Republican establishment could test the limits of the authoritarian angle of Trump supporters.
They kill Trump at the convention, declare anyone but Cruz the nominee and their new frontman is a hardass like Trump but believes in everything the establishment does.
It's their only play at hemorrhaging the the damage.
Again, this has been proven to be factually untrue by explanatory polling:The gender gap in a GE would be amazing. Women hate Trump.
Though Nunberg left Trump’s campaign in August, in a recent poll conducted for another client, Nunberg asked women in Connecticut who opposed marijuana legalization who they respected more: a politician who is also charitable and a world-renowned businessman, father and grandfather or an “Elderly woman who not only openly allows her husband to have affairs but tries to silence the women.” The figure with the favorable abstract framing of Trump beat the figure with the negative abstract framing of Clinton by more than 20 points, according to Nunberg.
...
“He’s a masculine figure and that will attract women to him,” said Nunberg. “It’s their dirty little secret. They like Donald Trump.”
Mitch McConnell might want to rethink his position. Seriously.
Republicans aren't like Democrats, they don't take top-down marching orders from the Party like all the Hillary supporters have.
They'll support a candidate for their principles and character no matter how much the Party demands otherwise.