You said there were conservative gains for 3 years under Obama. What have those been?
Printable View
You said there were conservative gains for 3 years under Obama. What have those been?
This is the narrative many people need to rationalize why doubling down on Obama's policies is somehow not a doubling down on Obama's policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
I should correct, it was more like 5 years but pick anything. Obamacare wasn't a liberal proposal. Insurance is an awesome business model - people give you a shit ton of money and while you do have to pay out of that nest-egg when shit happens, you've still got a shit ton of money to sit on in the mean time. And what did Obamacare do but make health insurance companies out of granite?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
They didn't get a conservative agenda pushed, but they played their cards real well for quite a while.
Obamacare was a dyed-in-the-wool left liberal proposal. It seems you're using an invalid spectrum or something that mislabels a policy that substantively reflects the necessary elements of historical leftism.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Maybe. It seems to me that single payer is the left proposal and free market is the right proposal. And when a lefty comes out and says his starting point is an enshrined market, you're seeing the right get away with something.
The invalid spectrum I reference gained prominence due to the factionalism of warring interests. They had pretty much the same beliefs but were different nations who hated each other, so they described their beliefs differently. But this didn't change the fact that they were the same beliefs, just with a different coating of paint. I'm referring to the European divide between fascism and communism. The invalid spectrum puts one on far right and one on far left while disregarding some simple things that show that distinction to be wrong (like how they're both extremist national socialism by philosophy and often by name too).Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
While elements of fascism, corporatism, and general government-related cronyism are called right-wing, they are not. I really do not know why this narrative has stuck, especially since the way historians describe the movement of liberty, which is entirely different from those other movements, is that it is generally right-wing. This is seen in how the US Constitution was considered a strongly conservative document (IIRC this can be thought of as classical liberalism). It got that label by rejecting the fascism, socialism, corporatism view. The valid spectrum is something along the lines of interventionism-------------liberty-ism. I'm not sure what's behind the push of the invalid left-right spectrum, but it seems to have something to do with the view that crony capitalism is somehow not related to government intervention even though it is explicitly and clearly so.
More specifically, yes single payer is the left proposal, but nationalization isn't the only left proposal. Intervention by regulators is also leftism, and corporatism is also leftism (due it existing by way of intervention).
This contrast can be seen by the proposals that conservatives give. They are opposites, sometimes in direct action and sometimes in philosophy, of Obamacare. Examples: Obamacare raises taxes, conservative proposals do not; Obamacare imposes mandates on businesses (and people), conservative proposals do not; conservative proposals look to expand competition across state lines, Obamacare regulates against it; conservative proposals look to expand health savings accounts that would be managed on the individual level, Obamacare does the opposite and creates a more unified juggernaut.
scalia just done croaked.
i have a hard time seeing an obama nomination getting through this close to an election. scotus appointments will probably now be the defining issue of the 2016 race, as well as of the gop race. i see cruz (and maybe rubio) coming out hard tonight on how he is only person who can reliably make conservative nominations.
also i suspect hillary will very much not want obama to get an appointment through. both sides think scotus is their trump card to win elections.
Hoe-lee shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
He has a legacy greater than most 2 term presidents. What he has done for 4th amendment law and others is something that will impact this nation for centuries. It's a heavy loss.
Trump may have lost the nomination with his attacks on W. Bad news in SC. He looks flapped.
He's a man who deserves respect. But still, what's your real opinion about his work? Your politics included.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
He was consistent. There was the odd case here and there, but he was largely consistent with his view on interpretation. He believed the constitution was a dead document, to be viewed as it would have been at the time it was written. This sometimes lead to results that both the left and right would disagree with, but it also came with a bunch of persuasive heft.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
He's not without his faults tho, no one is. His comments leave some believing him to be a bigot, or a racist. I have no opinion on that one way or another. He was devout though, and that language would sometimes seep into his opinions. I will say that I believe he stood in the way of gay rights, and wrongly so. But that's because my interpretation is that of a living document...so we fundamentally disagree. I'm not sure I'd call him a bigot for that.
His mark on history though is immense. He was the greatest 4th amendment protector we will likely ever see. From keeping dogs from sniffing your pourch, to officers from spying in your bathrooms, Scalia ensured that officers followed the constitution. He's had a great effect on the confrontation clause, and many other critical areas of criminal law like the death penalty. For the most part, all these decisions flow logically from his way of interpreting the constitution. (Example, the 4th specifically protects the home...so scalia grants the home huge protections; the 8th prohibits cruel and unusual punishment...but since the death penalty existed in the 1700s...how could it be cruel and unusual?)
You could always count on him to follow that interpretational view, and it's something well miss in future justices
I forgot to mention. Scalia was very witty, and his opinions always well written. That cannot be said of every justice (Alito's are annoying to go through). At minimum, even if you disagree with the rest of what I said, Scalia made the law fun and a pleasure to read.
One last thing.
Many are talking about how this is a great chance to create a liberal court by Obama (or the next dem). Theres large problems with that on its own, and i worry about a court deciding things along party lines as this one seems to have been doing. But people are neglecting to discuss the alternative. A Republican pres, and a Republican senate (assuming that's still the case) could be a disaster. The current rhetoric by republicans is borderline fanatical, and they continually disregard constitutional notions we used to hold sacred across party lines. The easiest example is now. It is unheard of for the Senate to outright refuse to do their duty and ignore ANY appointment Obama could make. Not just the crazy liberal ones (which wouldn't get past them anyway), but even more moderate ones as well. Their language is to deny even a hard core conservative nominee.
I get the "hate Obama at all costs" rhetoric, but it seems to be without foresight. Suppose a dem not only wins, but also inspires great wins in the Senate. They would rather gamble and risk having a liberal court for decades than accept what would have to be a moderate nominee from obama?
They should be compromising here. Especially since the make up of the court will likely change yet again within the next 4 years.
What's the borderline fanatical rhetoric?
The Senate holds as much Constitutional authority on appointments as POTUS. It should have shut down Obama's actions a long time ago, but instead it has been a mild hindrance at best. I find it strange that people think that just because the President wants something, it means giving him a measure of that something is compromise and reasonable. The legislative authority of the President is fractional (more like non-existent) compared to Congress. Just because Congress has been doing the wrong thing for so long doesn't mean it should continue to do so.
Regardless, it's reasonable for Obama to be expected to not get a nomination through at this point since he is already an effective lame duck with the election in full swing. If this was the beginning of 2015, those who dislike "obstructionism" would have a point if the Senate blocked it until the election. Still, the Senate has authority to block it as long as it wants and the Senate has the duty to block any nomination as awful as the rest of Obama's policies have reflected.
When the guy said he was going to fundamentally transform the country, he meant it. And look what it has gotten us. An economy that has recovered so poorly that virtually all economists think that a recession may be around the corner and that if it were to happen there would be no tools to combat it like there normally are, and a foreign policy that is identical to how North Korea got the bomb (down to the chief negotiator herself). Just to name a few.
It upsets me that Obama gets credit for gay rights. He was always behind the country on that and the gay rights advancement during his administration had zilch to do with his administration. The advancements came out of the military brass itself, out of the state voters and judiciaries, and finally out of SCOTUS wanting it to become a non-issue for the country.
I'm curious because I forget, on what basis was the gay marriage decision decided and on what basis was the dissent?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lied-WMDs.html has "9/11 was your brother's fault!" in the heading.
I can't find any youtube videos with Trump saying these exact words to Jeb in the South Carolina debate. Is the media exaggerating/embellishing the statements made by Trump?
Nope. He said it. I'll post video when I get one. They've made the circuit on the conservative sites like redstate and therightscoop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
I recommend watching the debate if you have the time. It was crazy. Trump is batshit. He went bananas.
Ofc since Cruz is my guy I'll add that he knocked it out of the park and Rubio included a handful of lies about him, per usual.
It's near the end of the second video: http://therightscoop.com/uh-oh-trump...s-safe-on-911/
He didn't say explicitly verbatim that it was W's fault, but the implication is there. He said "The WTC came down during the reign of George W Bush. He kept us safe? That's not safe." He also said (about OBL) "And George Bush had the chance to kill him", implying he didn't take it.
In any other venue this would be considered assigning culpability to W for the attacks.
absence of trumpitnow's tooting of trumphorn has made thread a dull boy.
Winning is winning
Anyway, Trump is crushing as usual. All of this hope for Cruz and Rubio has good intentions, but it's ultimately hopeless. His polls keep going up, and he will not lose the lead on delegates from this point on.
There's an internal Jeb! poll putting Cruz just 2 behind Trump. It makes sense since that debate should have sunk Trump and probably propped up Cruz.
Though I do think Trump is strong enough to win SC, Cruz will win several states for the coming few weeks and Rubio/Bush will likely not. This would completely change the race and possible make it HU.
It's already heads-up because Cruz's head's up Trump's ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also come to IRC you sack of shit : http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...om-199601.html
lol. it works as trump too, just different substance
https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...6e&oe=576EF85B
marco rubio has shown himself to be an unprincipled shithead. too bad it's hard to see (he hides it well). but it comes out when you follow closely.
given the actions taken by the candidates this cycle, their measure of principle is as follows: cruz>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>kasich>>>bush>>>>>>carso n>>>>>>>>>>>rubio>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>trump .
Principles don't win elections
Come to chat
http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016...p2-620x549.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
no time for chat today.
lol
The Pope calls out DT saying something like "people who build walls and not bridges are not real christians" and Trump trumps him back pics of the walls around Vatican City
lol
So basically what's been happening is that Cruz has been crushing the different campaigns' internal polling so much among conservatives that opponents strategies have been turning to shit. Trump saw days ago that he had dropped to mid twenties, which only just now the public polls that aren't using ridiculous weights are showing. It's not a coincidence Trump's strategy the last week has been to appeal to liberals.
Similar is probably the case with Rubio. He dropped the ball major time by last-minute-ducking Levin's huge conservative event yesterday.
I may be picking Cruz to win tomorrow.
My second favorite person in all the races is Sanders. Not because of policy, but because he appears to be the second least cunty. Contrast him to Rubio, who has shown himself to be exclusively a tool of Republican elitism. A Rubio presidency would be as much of a disaster as HW and W Bushes were.
Hoping Cruz picks Walker as his VP. There aren't that many people he can pick since most of them are traitors and tools. But Walker's one of the good ones. He may have to pick Perry though, since Perry is the only vetted candidate to have strongly endorsed Cruz. I love Perry but he probably shouldn't be on a presidential ticket. Put him in charge of the CIA or something.
The best Rubio should ever get is Secretary of State. Coupled with Cruz's guidance, his douchebaggery would likely not harm that position.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCzpRoYWgAAcLSz.jpg
And Trump hasn't dropped in any nationwide polls except the one, single rigged one.
He's polled mid-upper 30s in every single poll except the one that showed him with an lol 2% loss to Cruz. Yeah fucking right. Trump has actually surged at Rubio's expense since the last debate.
Here's a good summary of recent polls. It's pretty clear how ridiculous it is. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html
As far as I can tell, the polls with Trump leading so much are making the same mistakes that the Iowa ones did. Mostly they're projecting turnouts of >200% than normal. Half of these polls are so unreliable that they don't even give the sample size data.
So conveniently the only poll that you think is doing it right is the only poll showing it even being close. lol yeah okQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also come to chat
I think the race is real tight between Trump, Cruz, and Rubio and don't have much prediction beyond that, other than Cruz could be the one to get third.
As much as I want Cruz to run away with it, even the majority of his supporters don't like him for the right reasons. It's depressing. We finally get a truly transformative politician and so many have tricked themselves into thinking that he's not electable. Watch as Rubio becomes the President and makes the same mistakes as his recent predecessors. What upsets me the most about this is that what makes Cruz's policies great is their liberty orientation, yet the reason he's popular is his social conservatism. It's the same social conservatism that Rubio has, which encourages would-be Cruz supporters to instead support somebody who has been lying his way through the campaign, giving little message other than "imagine the wonderful stuff I make you feel" bullshit, who has actively run away from his previous liberty-oriented stances.
I want to believe that humans are at large capable of wisdom, but I fear that I'll be walking away from this election at my most jaded point. Maybe that's just the reality check I need.
Strong post by Dilbert creator examining Trump's chief persuasion tactic.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius
This just in: Trump is more charismatic than his rivals, and that counts for a whole lot. Red pill/game blogs have been writing about this since before Scott Adams was (if you'd like further reading).Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So Trump won SC, keep hatin
Eh I probably hate him less than Rubio and Carson by now.
Regardless, as more candidates drop out (Bush already did, Carson rumored to be waiting till after Nevada), Cruz and Rubio will pick up most of their votes.
Rubio will probably win that fight. The way he wouldn't, however, is if the further west you go, the more liberty-oriented those who identify as "conservative" and "evangelical" are. SC conservatives, for example, are quite a bit different in nature than Oklahoma conservatives. Rubio is unlikely to get a lot of endorsements as key as Nikki Haley's was. The Deep South has always been a bit different than the cowboy states (Appalachians and western plains). The western Midwest could also be friendly Cruz territory like it was friendly Santorum territory, which can also explain why Cruz fared better among conservatives and evangelicals in Iowa than SC. Also SC has a history of adoring bombastic tough guy and hyper military stuff.
If the difference in regional sensibilities is not as much as some think, Rubio will probably over take Cruz and then beat Trump after Cruz drops out. From what I read in the blogs, I can say with fullest confidence that most Cruz supporters will hold their noses and vote Rubio long before they even consider voting for Trump. Only a handful are hung up on Rubio's amnesty lies.
It should be noted that Trump's support is unique. It consists of people who decided to support him a long time ago and almost immediately after he announced. It doesn't grow and he doesn't get that many undecideds or any momentum from wins and dropouts. This is why he can hit 33% in a big field yet not poll above 43% in a HU field.
I think it is likely that after Super Tuesday, Rubio will have won zero states, while Cruz will have won a handful (Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, maybe Tennessee and Colorado and Alaska or something), and then Rubio will have no choice but to drop out. After which Cruz can beat up Trump, especially since Kasich will likely stay in the race like a fucking dweeb who doesn't realize even a great showing in Ohio and Michigan will do him nothing. If Cruz won Texas by enough and if he took a handful of Super Tuesday states, he would be neck and neck (or even have delegate lead) on Trump.
Going over the 2012 results, it very much looks like South Carolina (and Georgia) is its own entity. It voted wildly different than the normal conservative and evangelical vs moderate divide. Newt's tough guy and bombast did not play well at all in the western plains, Appalachians, Midwest, and even the western Deep South, but Santorum's (weak version of) compassionate conservatism did.
Trump Trump Trump Trump
By this point, I support Trump infinity more than Rubio. Rubio embodies all that is wrong in politics. He has zero accomplishments, got elected on an issue that he completely flipped on immediately after he got in office (amnesty), is actively running away from most of the positions he claims he believes in order to get party support, and this guy, this fucking guy, is embraced by the establishment as their one last hope. The Republican Party is a fraud. A Rubio/Haley ticket would win the general election without breaking a sweat, but the presidency would just be more of the same pro-people-already-in-power-and-nobody-else garbage.
I'd be okay with a Trump/Cruz ticket. At the very least that would signal that Trump is interested in actually solving problems instead of perpetuating the government aristocracy.
Yeah that theory fits perfectly with how his numbers have kept increasing pretty steadily for the most part since he first announced he was runningQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
His numbers hit mid-thirties real fast and haven't budged. It's looking like it's possible his open primary numbers are mid-low thirties and closed primary numbers are twenties.
Cruz is still the only player to consistently outperform his polls, by ~3-5%. Lots of western closed primary states may be going to Cruz.
No republican nominee has ever lost the primary after winning both NH and SC.
There's always a first.
The reason that history exists is because the candidates embodied certain characteristic. The wins came along for the ride; they weren't deterministic.
Or if you like sticking to patterns, in the last several cycles, NH and SC each diverged wildly from historical trends.
Found this interesting talking about the comparison between Trump and Berlusconi
https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comm...9cqj?context=2Quote:
The similarities go well beyond what /u/Vaernil pointed out: a billionaire coming from outside the political system (at a time in which the political system is weak due to its own shortcomings, rampant corruption, disconnect from the people), a man who speaks straight (unlike standard politicians), who can get around the opposition of the political establishment because he can pay for his own campaign, who can claim he won't be corrupt like all other candidates because he's rich already so what would be the point, who can claim that — being a successful businessman — he knows how to make economy work again, who can use pretend-humor to say things which are normally unacceptable in politics (always claiming that he's been misquoted or misinterpreted or that he was exaggerating, all the while appealing to those people which actually want to hear that kind of politically-incorrect stuff). A man with rude but brilliant communication abilities which no one in the establishment really knows how to deal with.Yes they are different people in different countries at different times. But let me tell you: they are exactly the same type of political phenomenon. Looking at what Berlusconi has done to Italy, it really is scary. Berlusconi's damage was limited to Italy and to some minor extent Europe, the same kind of thing in the US would be an epic disaster.
To clarify: the trouble with Berlusconi was not the Bunga-bunga parties he became famous for. It was the systematic attempt at the destruction of the rules of the country to bend them for his own and his close friend's personal gain. It was a disaster for the economy, the judiciary system, the political system (e.g. he changed the electoral law for his own advantage — the law was later repealed by Italy's Supreme Court but in the meanwhile had already been used, and the repeal left a mess anyway, and this is just one example among dozens).
Berlusconi fooled a lot of people, even smart people, when he "descended into the arena" (as he put it). When he got in power and showed his true face it was already too late, it took 20 years for him to lose his grip on Italy.
TL;DR: I was there, I remember it and can draw the comparison, Trump is following the steps of 1994 Berlusconi almost exactly. Berlusconi was a disaster and very hard to get rid of.
Let's hope the GOPe (establishment) realizes this when, after the SEC votes, Rubio has taken 0-1 states and Cruz has taken several, so they can reluctantly support Cruz against Trump.
Word is going around among legit conservative insiders that the RNC inside intends on this reaching a brokered convention and then changing the rules to whatever they way to keep Trump and Cruz out. They've already changed some (tripled their unbound delegates in secret).
They don't want Trump for the obvious disaster reasons, and they are scared shitless of Cruz since a Cruz nomination will put to bed the faux idea for a generation that conservatives can't win elections.. The GOPe bureaucracy can't be having that.
Rigging elections, le gasp.
All I can say is FEEL THE BERN.
#GetRiggedQuote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Hillary is gonna walk from here on out.
From Sumner's AMA, response to Sanders' economic policy
Quote:
Indeed the Democratic economists greatly underestimated the problems with his policies, as we know that European welfare states have GDP/person 25% lower than the US, if not more. So the problem is not Sander's unrealistic claim that growth would speed up to 5.3%, it's that GDP would plunge massively lower if his plans were implemented.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...3e8_story.html
Good article. What's happening is something common when good lawyers fight each other. You turn the other persons theme against them, undermining everything about it. Ordinarily, your theme causes recall, makes ppl think of the message, and associates your case with the theme. But if you can undermine it, give it a second or alterior meaning, then the entire thing backfires and turns into a game of which interpretation makes more sense.
With TrusTed, undermining it with constant accusations of lying makes ppl rethink this message. The big problem with trust is that it's hard to build, harder to maintain, but easy to lose. So Trump's "liar liar" is likely going to work. Especially since the natural reaction to someone when they say to "trust them" is to not trust them.
I have serious love in my heart for this.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
People think Cruz looks smarmy, ratty, oleaginous; I think he looks kind and considerate.
True. However, I don't think this strategy would be effective if Cruz used the right counter. I agree with the major conservative bloggers who have spent the last couple days calling for Cruz return to his old inspirational ways. I don't think it's quite because of the "liar" attacks that Cruz dropped in SC, but because his responses to that have made his message different than why people flock to him in the first place. Granted, he probably can't achieve a Reagan level of inspirational. The NY media never discusses the heart of Reagan and thus deride Cruz's attempt to reunite the Reagan coalition, but all you have to do is listen to some of Reagan's better speeches, and you'll see how this guy turned many millions of non-conservatives into conservatives. Obama's best speeches don't compare to the best I've heard from Reagan IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Basically, to win, at tomorrow's debate, Cruz needs to stomp Trump with 20% of his time then use the remaining 80% on exclaiming the American revival. Which is pretty much what Rubio has done at every debate. Cruz needs to step a little bit out of that academic debate slash lawyer courtroom speak. Loads of people really like Cruz yet aren't voting for him because they see him as unelectable, and they believe that because Cruz doesn't inspire them. If Cruz can change that one thing, he'd take like 40% of Rubio's votes and 15% of Trump's, and win the nomination.
Of course, it's probably too late for that. The strategy would have worked if he started it before Iowa. Maybe now he really has to go for broke and unleash the dogs on Trump unlike anybody expects. I'm not sure that would work though. I know it wouldn't work to go after Rubio. He needs to avoid Rubio. No conservatives are voting for Rubio because they think he's a better conservative than Cruz, and they all get soured by this spat. It's a shame that Rubio has taken the low road and I hate his guts for it, but many look past substance and embrace style.
He looks like the former to me. The only one who comes off as kind to me tho is Sanders. He the only that seems to be doing this for reasons other than egoQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sanders is easily grumpy. Easily. Motives are a different thing. Presentation is grumpy.
Ya, but its in a "get off my lawn" cutesy sort of way.
*Oh look, a distraction!*
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/up...tion.html?_r=0
What keeps Kasich in the race? Lack of integrity.
Granted that's the reason everybody not named Cruz (and probably Sanders) is in the race.
Integrity is over-rated.
Ditto.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Cruz2016
I figured it out. It's his smile, his posing smile. That's what gets me. I googled a bunch of pics of him, and a lot do look sincere, kind, etc. But his smile just screams fake, insincere rat.
I followed his record first. Guess I got lucky that way. He basically has done everything he promised to do while running for Congress. He definitely has a different look, which I'm sure hurts him with some who haven't checked out his past.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
The presidency will see him age nicely into some great jowls.
Let's hope Titanium Ted turns into Super Tuesday Terrific Turnout Ted.Quote:
Originally Posted by FeliciaLee
If Trump doesn't flounder in this debate and if Cruz doesn't obliterate, I think Trump probably takes the nomination >80%. IIRC the RNC is capable of and is sorta prepping to change the nomination rules, so Trump could be rejected on that alone.
It should also be noted that by now, the only person who can beat him outright is Cruz (and only if Cruz runs on all cylinders). If Cruz drops out, Trump still beats Rubio.
Of course, the GOPe is totally fine with this since they hate conservatives who don't let them sell taxpayers down the river in secret. The worst sin Cruz ever committed in the eyes of the GOPe is standing up against totalitarianism and weakness in his own party.
On Tuesday, Cruz will win Texas. He has good possibility to win Oklahoma and Arkansas and maybe Tennessee. Then it depends on how Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Alaska and Alabama are like. With a weakened Trump and a strong Cruz, Cruz probably wins all of those (a big if, though). But we really have no clue how the Mountain and Plains West think about these things. It's assumed that OK AK and TN are close-ish to Texas.
Shame on Rubio. For being a shithead who lies to advance his own egomania, and by doing so has allowed a Big Authoritarian national socialist to get this far.
A silver lining is that if Cruz wins Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas on Super Tuesday (while Rubio wins nothing because he will always wins nothing), then conservatives are gonna jump ship and get on Cruz. This new Marcomentum is just because they think Cruz can't beat Trump but Rubio can. If it is demonstrated that Rubio can't but Cruz is on pace, it'll come to a halt pretty quickly.
Trump's best debate. It's hard to see him losing the nomination. He'd only do it due to serious loyalty to principles from voters. Which uhhhhhhhhhhhh ain't gonna happen.
Trump will not lose unless it becomes a two person race. Even then, hes got a ton of momentum. "We dont win anymore" plays really well with "look at cruz/rubio/carson/kasich, they lose. Theyre part of the reason why we dont win anymore. Look at me, I win."
They gotta wheel and deal and promise VP or something, else its Trump takes all.
Also, the GOP wont dare swindle this away from Trump by changing the rules. The fear that he'll run in spite of that is too great.
I'm not sure if the laws allow him to defect and run at this point. I haven't a definitive answer, but some somewhat reliable (somewhat) sources have stated that Trump 3rd partying it is a non-issue due to some of the "sore loser" laws in some states (like Ohio) that wouldn't allow him to run. I've also heard that those laws are weak and won't hold up to pressure.
I'm unsure of the degree to which the RNC will wheel and deal. They certainly would to a degree. That's why Democrats created so many superdelegates for themselves, so they can deliberately stop somebody they do not want even if that person gets >50%. The RNC is no different. It can't be done just willy nilly though.
It's funny, Trump's worst moment was his defense of his healthcare plan. Yet, um, he was kinda sorta right, and it's one of the few times he has been substantively kinda sorta right. Rubio's plan isn't that great, and by far the best part of the elements he mentioned on stage is just cutting down the borders for competition, which was Trump's entire plan. Cruz's is still better all around, but he didn't get to discuss it this time. Rubio's is better than Obamacare by a lot, but he needs to drop the subsidy. That will keep costs way too high.
I had a wee bit of sympathy for Trump in that moment. It's hard to convincingly articulate how freedom and competition solves problems. People want mandates, they want will, they want primary movers, not hard to understand physical and social realities.
The moderator was a total joke. Blitzer is responsible for halting the two most important moments of the whole debate and changing the subject just as the candidates were digging into the flesh.
They need to branch out with these debates. They need moderators that don't think of themselves as stars. They need to allow the candidates greater reign to throw down. Trump was on the verge of getting truly wrecked before Blitzer put an end to it. Twice.
Your mouth to God's ear!Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
IDK, I think Marco had the best of it. Early stumble, but then he seemed to be getting the better of Trump and tag teaming with Cruz to expose Trump's lack of substance.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Primary election is over. 97% chance of trump, 99% chance of hillary. Accept facts and move on.
I accept I'm pretty bad at assessing aftermath of debates. At least these debates. I think it has something to do with that Trump lost pretty much all of them on substance yet came out the winner for whatever style reasons. So I figured the only way he could lose is stylistically, and in this debate he was pretty boss stylistically. But it seems the conservative and pro-Trump crowds both think Trump didn't do so hot and Rubio and Cruz both crushed him.Quote:
Originally Posted by FeliciaLee
I can easily give several plausible scenarios with >0% of probability that would result in Trump losing. Rubio or Cruz taking the nomination is still drawing at least 25%, and it could be >50% if we had better information. For example, if we had information that if one of Cruz or Rubio don't win any states on Super Tuesday, he will drop out and endorse the other, Trump's equity drops below 50%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
One of several not unlikely scenarios: Cruz wins Texas and maybe a few others. Rubio loses Florida and every other. At that point, Rubio exits and endorses Cruz. Trump would then be in a world of hurt. Granted he could still win since by then many pro-Cruz states would have already happened. But Cruz has a strong delegate game. He would pick up more delegates in the races he takes second than Trump would in the races he takes second.
So much of this boils down to Cruz's Super Tuesday strategy working: winning Texas by enough that he gets a load of delegates, and having a strong delegate game in Georgia even through a non-first finish. He's not playing to win that many states. He's only going to Oklahoma and Tennessee once each between now and the election. Everything else is Texas and Georgia.
I am waiting for Texas. I believe Cruz has to win or it's over for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Oh yeah if Cruz loses Texas he needs to drop out the next day.
wufwugy, you're delusional. Polling and forecasting has come a long way in recent years. Barring some act of god, Trump is the nominee. I could offer you $2000 to $250, and I still would have way the best of it.
Also there is no way that cruz or rubio drop out. They're gonna split the hate trump vote down to the last state and neither of them will have a chance. Between them and Kasich, the GOP is committing harakiri.
Damn, I dunno if i'd take this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
I tend to agree. Cruz won't drop out unless he drops too far (which he won't), and Rubio won't drop out because he's banking on a brokered convention. Even with this, it's possible he'll drop out if he doesn't think he can win 8 states or if he loses Florida. Still, I doubt it and I think he's going to a convention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
The race is more fluid than you think. This doesn't mean that it will end up looking something other than it does now, but there are lots of reasons it can change. Trump is highly vulnerable to being kept at 25% in most states and there is reason to believe that it could begin to happen since Rubio and Cruz are ignoring each other now. Trump has been about 10x less attacked than Cruz; numbers respond to attacks quite a lot. This notion that Trump is teflon is just not true. People mistakenly assume Trump has been attacked (when he really hasn't that much) and then assume it means attacks don't hurt him. It could be too late though, as momentum is a thing. But really small things like Rubio simply not attacking Cruz in the two weeks leading up to SC and instead attacking Trump could have easily made Cruz the nominee.
Polling hasn't come a long way. Polling is actually in a worse state today than it used to be. The Shy Tory effect has been pretty big the last few cycles and most pollsters have gotten results wildly wrong most of the time. However, the reasons for those incorrect results are bedded down more now than the most recent cycles, so today's polls are more accurate (not individually, but when there are lots and lots of them).
Poll-wise, Cruz is basically neck and neck with Trump for delegates by March 2. Poll-wise, Cruz is essentially tied with Trump in ~3 Super Tuesday states. Poll-wise, Rubio can chip away at them both and actually win a handful of NE closed primaries. If Trump doesn't go to the convention with >50% of the delegates, he does not become the nominee. This is because after the first pledged delegate vote, all delegates are free to go wherever they want, and the RNC has a significant chunk of its own delegates. The anti-Trump delegates will be a bit greater than the pro-Trump ones, and Rubio will be made the nominee.
I'd for sure take it if I wasn't a broke ass student.