https://i.imgur.com/qmLzKxT.jpg
Printable View
carson gonna win it all. youse heard it here first
Bernie bernie bernie
the closest thing bernie gets to accuracy is a somewhat reasonable diagnosis of the problem. for example, when he says the biggest problem for blacks is education, he's not wrong. that's not unique because, well, many all over the place agree with that. where he diverges from correctness is in his prescription. more subsidization and centralization isn't the solution, it's what has caused the problem in the first place.
check out thomas sowell. he discusses quite a lot (citing tons of data) about how blacks did far better under the "old" education system, the one that has been subverted by all the leftist policies that people like sanders supported over the last several decades.
the most recent thing about bernie to make the news (since it's boring to continually debunk him on the same stuff over and over) is how he doesn't even know that denmark isn't a socialist country. his anti-capitalist example is far more capitalist than the US. funny that he could say something so outlandish and inaccurate in a national debate and not get fact-checked. oh wait, that makes total sense since the modus operandi of the media is to obfuscate facts and champion populism.
Name someone running whos better on the gay marriage issue.
Lets be real. Your ideal candidate would use all his political umfph to try and dismantle government and go completely stateless. Failing that, theyd at least push for smaller government. You see Sanders promoting cutting the amount of power corporations have over congress, and you lose your mind.
Heres the thing though. Im a reasonable person, and I started out as a man of science. When new data comes out, I take it and use it to reevaluate my old viewpoints. However, we've had this economics discussion on whats gonna make America better for over a year...and you've been unpersuassive. We always hit a crossroads on a few essential assumptions regarding that view point, and we cant agree on them. So as far as bernie being bad because of his economic views, I cant agree.
Meanwhile, carson's so dumb he thought homesexuality was akin to pedophilia, the kind of bigoted horseshit we saw being spouted when buttsex was still illegal.
Since when is Denmark not "socialist"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
Even the link doesn't. Social democracy is not exactly socialism. Similar roots, but in practice they're a bit different.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30886
You can find lots of posts by this economist (as well as others) discussing the issue and related ones. Denmark (and Sweden and basically all of Scandinavia more or less) is in a lot of ways a capitalist utopia relative to the US. Overall the region is more capitalist than the US. Its tax policies and regulations are substantially more market oriented and capitalist friendly than here.
I do? I would love it if Sanders supported this, but he doesn't. Rhetorically he does, but his policies just make it worse. This isn't even pro-or-anti-government philosophy stuff. Sanders' policy proposals to deal with corporate influence in Congress would just create even more power for special interests to get what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
That's my fault because we rarely discuss economics specifically and instead discuss social philosophy. Be aware that it isn't me saying Bernie is out to lunch, it's the economics profession at large. I've tried to translate some of the reasons why, but the discussions always end up in other places. So I recommend you stop listening to me and instead listen to economists. I can give you a list of where to start if you would like. Probably the best bang for your buck is to go to the learnliberty channel on youtube. It has like 40 econ phd's giving swift lessons.Quote:
Heres the thing though. Im a reasonable person, and I started out as a man of science. When new data comes out, I take it and use it to reevaluate my old viewpoints. However, we've had this economics discussion on whats gonna make America better for over a year...and you've been unpersuassive. We always hit a crossroads on a few essential assumptions regarding that view point, and we cant agree on them. So as far as bernie being bad because of his economic views, I cant agree.
No he didn't. Here's what he said:Quote:
Meanwhile, carson's so dumb he thought homesexuality was akin to pedophilia, the kind of bigoted horseshit we saw being spouted when buttsex was still illegal.
This is not equating homosexuality and pedophilia. It is instead saying that all things that are not man-woman marriage are alike in that they're not man-woman marriage. That said, the optics of this are awful and his rhetoric sucks. Not to mention his actual position sucked. There's irony in that the desire that some gays have for being married is an embrace of mainstream protestant nuclear family cultural ethic. American Christianity needs a leader who explains why Christian mores and norms would be more furthered by embracing gay marriage and child adoption.Quote:
"Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality -- it doesn't matter what they are, they don't get to change the definition."
SCOTUS. We won. I feel like voting for a pro-gay marriage person will do nothing to further gay rights. At this point.Quote:
Name someone running whos better on the gay marriage issue.
Also I do not get the impression that Carson is a militant fundamentalist.
So only countries that have a political party called "socialist party" or otherwise identify as "socialist" are socialist? I'd politely disagree. Social democracy is a form of government with a mixture of socialist and capitalist social and economic policies. If we go by that blogger's definition, Soviet Union wasn't socialist and USA was for a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
im not terribly concerned with the terminology. however, his opinion is more reflective of those who study this stuff for a living.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Thats my fault for not investigating the pedophilia thing. I was reading one of those "where do they stand" type sites and it said that, then I googled and found tons of links with the headline. I done fucked up.
But hes still incredibly anti-gay, and that matters for quite a few reasons. For one, he'll be responsible for nominating people to the Supreme Court, a decision that could rewrite the entire victory. That victory was also not possible without Obama's massive support in the case. For another, he has a world of influence over how gays are treated in the military, a front that is far from over.
As far as learning economics, I'd love to. But the problem is that it seems that its either too complex, or too assumption riddled, to be whittled down into a simple idea. When I learn about sciency things, I often listen to Neil Degrasse Tyson bc hes awesome. Most sciencey types say he isnt that big a deal smarts wise...but I disagree. As far as any issue hes ever talked about, hes been able to whittle it down to something I can walk away with and understand. That takes a lot of skill, and its something I have to do to juries soon. But I dont see anyone effectively doing that with economics. It always seems like they take an assumption, carry it to an extreme, and pray its gonna work out. I dont have that faith.
Fact is, I dont see how bernie's policies are going to hurt us, and no one has been able to explain it in a way that made actual sense.
the learnliberty videos are great for this. plus milton friedman was the master. what have you read/watched?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
my econ 101 textbook was written by paul krugman, one of the most lefty* economists alive. bernie couldnt answer 2% of the questions in it. also, it's not assumption based at all. it's pretty much all supply and demand math (find the area under the curve!). the supply and demand model is as well established as evolution and gravity. for example the stock market couldnt even function if the law of supply and law of demand were non-insignificantly different than the models.
*it should be noted that a lefty economist is still very to the right of the populace. economists agree on about 98% of things, and they're all pretty "right-wing" on the stuff. it's the 2% of things they argue about, like whether or not interest rates are a meaningful measure of monetary policy. granted, this disagreement does not reflect academic economics that much. but it does reflect economists as a whole since so many are stuck in the weeds of punditry and political ideology.
look at it this way: it took until the 00's for the federal reserve to finally admit that it caused the great depression with its bad monetary policy. all signs point at the fed for causing the 08 financial crisis and subsequent great recession (not housing recession, those were different things) just like they did with regards to the great depression, but it will still be several decades before economists finally admit it at large.
i take a different view. obama only supported gay rights after the people did. he wasn't a mover. scotus also needs to maintain its legitimacy to such a degree that you see a "right wing" court support obamacare, enforce gay marriage, and not overturn roe v wade.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
about carson specifically, i dont think he would be likely to nominate hardline evangelical judges. from the outside view, carson looks pretty much the same as huckabee, but they are quite different. i would probably never support huckabee. he's not an american conservative, he's an evangelical and a populist. he believes in such anti-conservative things like legislating morality and expanding welfare spending. carson would likely be much more about judicial restraint and protection of liberty. im not 100% on this. if he makes it far i guess we'll find out more.
im pretty sure im going to have to disagree with carson's stance on drugs. i mean, i get part of where he's coming from, but i think it is strategically wrong. now if instead he were to support things like legalizing responsible medicinal use of drugs while cracking down on illegal trafficking, i would get behind him.
You're trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. The guy is not a good candidate, he won't be elected, and your desire to make him a hero is pretty strange.
i dont have a desire to make anybody a good candidate. understanding comes first.
btw what do you even mean he's not a good candidate? there are avenues to success for him and in ways is a fantastic candidate. if he won the nomination (which is not terribly unlikely) he would likely crush in the general.
just in case, dont let the media cloud better judgment. they've been regularly wrong on this stuff. it's only in small here or there pieces in 07 that you would have found people saying obama can beat hillary, for example.
one of the reasons im intrigued by carson in the first place is because i see how powerful of a dark horse he really is. this is getting borne out as he has risen nearly 3x as much in the polls as when i first started calling him a dark horse.
Is this meant to be funny? Because it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://i.imgur.com/19Aeepp.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by boost
so a few things about carson as a candidate
the data showing the power of the establishment reducing over the years are striking. the situation is even dramatically different than it was in 08. it's possible that we have finally hit the tipping point where small donors are more important than larger ones. a conservative analysis of the donor ratio show that cruz (at like 1/1.5 big to small) is in the best spot and bush is doomed (at like 15/1). a liberal analysis of the ratio says that carson could possibly blow everybody out of the water (at like 1/13).
in iowa polling specifically, carson is blowing everybody out of the water, as seen here
http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iPT69fhN1yG4/v1/-1x-1.jpg
the combined first and second is what matters. beyond that, a strategic analysis of iowa shows that if nothing changes, carson will likely outperform these numbers since iowa caucus goers are different from iowa poll responders in that they're more heavily christian and they typically coalesce around one candidate.
obviously, a win in iowa is not a nomination guarantor. by itself, iowa "doesn't matter". huckabee won iowa in 08 and mccain was able to win new hampshire and then the establishment coalesced around him, for example. but carson does not have huckabee's weaknesses and the establishment doesn't have the power it used to. the establishment is also more fractured, some of them like carson in ways they didnt like huckabee.
carson will have more strength in new hampshire than huckabee did (but will probably still lose unless trump exits before then and endorses carson). huckabee did play well in the sec primary (the south/super tuesday stuff), but carson will play better, possibly much better. if trump is out of the race, i would expect carson to absolutely crush there. additionally, huckabee did not play well in the plains west or midwest (excluding iowa), yet carson is quite strong in the rustbelt midwest. he wins does very well in michigan and pennsylvania polls. i dont know how strong he is in the plains west, but those states are very unlikely to go to an establishment candidate (except maybe bush, but still unlikely)
about carson on policy, he's right on social justice (probably the most important issue of our time) and he's one of the only who is right on social justice. he's right on economics, on education, on terrorism, and mostly on immigration. he's not right on everything, but this is far from putting lipstick on a pig.
carson can win the presidency, and if he does, i predict he'll have won in a landslide. then in 2020 he'll win by an even larger degree. his presidency would likely by accompanied by a much stronger economy and a realignment of the thinking of many voters. basically it could be reaganesque.
I tend to think that in theory, it would be best for society if the electees were the best and brightest minds with no ideological baggage. Instead we have people voting for the candidates they think will pursue the agenda they personally find preferable. Whoever thought the people should decide was an idiot.
it is a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
fwiw, it's mainly the people themselves who got them the power to decide. popular democracy is a disaster and the US was intended to have virtually none of it.
as for the distinction between ideology and "the best and the brightest", i dunno, they both kinda suck. they both have merits yet both major drawbacks. for example, as smart as obama is, the guy is clueless on economics. as great as classical liberalism ideology is, left liberalism is horrible yet seems to be far more popular among the people.
i think ideology can win out because the ultimate test is merit. what ideological following of market capitalism there is exists today because of the merits. the same goes for the great reduction in the ideological following of communism. also, you can put 435 einsteins in the house of representatives and it would still be dysfunctional for structural reasons.
philosopher kings was a sorta right idea, but even those are a disaster because eventually one of the kings is a bad/stupid guy. which raises the question: isnt it then about who gets to decide? which suggests that an ideology of personal responsibility and restrained government is best suited to for the kind of results most people are looking for.
cnbc's disdain for republicans was on full display last night. im not sure i can blame the network or mainstream journalists. their audiences like democrats and hate republicans.
bush will not recover. my guess is establishment goes to christie. rubio will probably only get full establishment support at last resort.
won't matter though. the establishment vote will account for <40%. they need to coalesce around one candidate to have a chance, but if the anti-establishment coalesces around one candidate, that candidate will win. im guessing it will be cruz.
it's amazing that the moderators acting like such children while trump reigned in his more bombastic tendencies ended up making trump look like a wizened adult in comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I watched the first half hour then turned it off. Might go back and watch the rest later, idk. The moderators set the tone real quick by skipping the "introductions" step, and going right into attacks. Then they decided to change up the typical format, and refuse to give people the chance to rebut or comment on another candidate's answers. It really did seem like all they were interested in was painting them in a bad light, right from the gate.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Or maybe they were hoping that by turning it into a fight, they'd drive ratings up for a channel which many cant access. Idk. The other two debates at least gave the appearance of objective moderating tho
the reasons i think the moderators acted like this are mainly twofold: (1) they're team democrat. im not sure who among them would even consider voting in a republican primary. (2) theyre celebrities and personalities themselves, so they want the spotlight as well. a far more entertaining debate wouldn't even have moderators who allocate questions like this and instead would have referees who keep the time and fair play and just let the candidates wrestle it out. this strategy has been proposed before, but no hosts want to do it because the hosts themselves want attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
I mean, even the CNN one didnt appear like it was super heavy anti-repub like this one
Ted Cruzin' and a brusin'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu9Va1YkT8k
reading a ben domenech article and he has a better theory than mine: these particular moderators are hacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/29/...ght-they-were/Quote:
it’s not the ideology that’s a problem, it’s faction. You could have an absolutely fair and interesting debate moderated by Chris Hayes, Ezra Klein, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Stephen Colbert, even if all are personally to the left of the moderators last night when it comes to policy. Why? Because none of them are in the faction of being giant hacks. The problem with last night’s moderators was not an ideological problem, it was a hack problem.
Yeah, I only tuned in for 10 minutes, and my take away was that the moderation was awful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUom_28cY_I
Game over, Hilary.
can't stop loling. he's out on the streets, spitting that flavor
https://soundcloud.com/abcpolitics/ben-carson-radio-ad
getting bullish on christie. he can become the establishment favorite and he's one of the few i think has the political skills to win the nomination. he's got a handful of great things on policy. i kinda hate how anti-pot he is though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdYMx7sycW4
He's just got a bad image. All people remember about him is that he's the "new jersey bridge douche". Ppl remember that, and ignore how he's the 2nd best at connecting emotionally in his speaches. (Rubio wins that prize)Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Rubio has bad things too, but you don't fuck with a person's commute. That shit inspires ire, and will never be forgotten...even if he wasn't actually involved at all
You guys see the snl Democrat debate? Was hit aND miss, but the hits were worth it Imo
you mean the larry david one?
i think christie can survive the bridge scandal. it hasnt and it probably won't be proven that he knew about it. the worst of it is an inference that he surrounds himself with people like that or that he gives his team the type of aura, but that's a little too dissociated to have any lasting harm imo. the donor class doesn't like it at all though, but they would change if he were to redeem himself politically, which he may be doing right now
Im just saying, I'm not all that involved, like most voters, yet I remember this.
Like, people don't even know what socialist means anymore. Everyone knows what a 1hr delay to and from work is tho
he's got a tough as shit road for sure. it's possible he could have a better chance of it than rubio. rubio's got problems that you don't see much of from the outside. every faction has reasons to dislike some of his policies. even though he sounds like a real adept wonk, he's actually one of the least strong on policies candidates the gop has, as his stuff is sort of a convoluted smorgasbord, showing that it's not rooted in much understanding or conviction.
if christie could come in and cut entitlement spending, cut supply restricting taxes, cut regulations, and cut the monopolistic strangleholds on education (all stuff they say he focused on in jersey), id consider it a presidency well done.
the story on christie is one of corruption and cronyism. i really dont know one way or the other
This guy could be the next president of the United States...Quote:
Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson believes the Egyptian pyramids were used for grain.
In a college commencement speech 17 years ago, Carson told the graduates of Andrews University in Michigan that it is his "personal" belief that the pyramids were built as storehouses for grain and not, as archaeologists say, for the interment of dead pharaohs.
"My own personal theory is that Joseph built the pyramids to store grain," Carson said in taped remarks first reported by Buzzfeed on Wednesday. "Now all the archeologists think that they were made for the pharaohs' graves. But, you know, it would have to be something awfully big if you stop and think about it."
fwiw i think assessing value of a presidential candidate based on things like that is bad. there are all sorts of issues where the president doesn't have much of any effect. judging them based on their understanding or beliefs of those issues is a sorting mechanism, but a simplistic one at best and dangerous one at worst.
it doesnt matter if the president thinks the earth is 6000 years old (carson doesnt, btw) because very little of what he can do will affect things related to that belief. but it really matters if he thinks things like monetary policy doesn't affect nominal gdp or that the reason for a bad economy is a mythical bubble or that the reason jobs arent bountiful is tech advances like atm's or that an effective way to increase income for the poor is to decrease demand for labor for the poor (all things obama believes, all things much worse for the nation than if he believed in aliens, grain pyramids, or jesus riding dinosaurs).
also this stuff is a very lefty sjw type attack. way to marginalize anything somebody says no matter how accurate it may be by pointing at something else they believe that isnt a socially acceptable belief
also carson may or may not still think that. he has openly admitted to changing a lot of his beliefs. his beliefs on vaccines and the age of the earth are examples of reasoned positions came to through knowing that there's a line to tread
No doubt. I would still vote for carson over hillary or bernie. It just blows my mind how unexceptional some of these people that are truly in the running to be the next president are.
I just read the waitbutwhy posts about the first 24 presidents (up until McKinley). There were a lot of crummy presidents in the late 1800s but they were all formidable human beings. Almost every president in the 50 years after Lincoln was a general in the civil war, spoke an absurd number of languages, and was an immensely well-educated and accomplished person. It's a pretty stark comparison to the sad sacks we have to deal with today.
Anyway, I don't think carson is a real candidate. He just feels too much like a one month fluke like how Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were #1 for a month in 2011 before the pre-eminent candidate took over the polls. The major difference this time is that there is no such pre-eminent guy. We all thought it was Bush, but Bush appears to be done. I'd bet on Rubio or Cruz.
i am astounded at the total nonsense the media is attacking carson with. the tactics used to discredit his past are the types of things that kindergartens think holds sway. all logic goes out the window when it comes to attacking a republican. especially a black one.
on the other hand, sanders is irreproachable. it doesn't matter how factually inaccurate or logically unsound the things he says are, he's blames the rich and cares deeply for the non-rich therefore he's always right.
all i can say on the media narrative around carson is that it has been wrong every step of the way and is likely to be wrong about its predictions now.
for example, even now as several in the conservative media are beginning to see that carson does have some presidential abilities with things like strong campaign organizational skills, they're still saying "yeah but this other thing over here, he's bad at that. ignore the fact that we have been continually wrong about carson and are continually having to say so".
now they're saying that the real problem of carson is that he doesn't have policy depth and he'll get eaten alive in the debates when they get smaller. the irony is that what the media thinks is policy depth actually isn't policy depth. soundbites and explaining things in establishment-speak is not policy depth. i wouldnt be surprised if carson has even more real policy depth than anybody on the stage. one way of seeing this is that the way he talks about issues shows that his beliefs are rooted in philosophical understanding. contrast this to rubio, who's all over the place philosophically. rubio sounds like a well-oiled machine on policy, but his real understanding of it is likely less than appearances. of course this harkens back to the fact that many in the media themselves are philosophically inconsistent on policy, so they don't know what policy depth looks like.
carson may not do well with establishment-speak, but he kills it in conservative-speak. it's a unique talent that you will almost never hear the media point out (ive seen it only once). to those who understand conservative-speak, carson's rise was never a surprise.
carson's humility and demeanor are such an incredible strength that they could propel him to an actual, true landslide where where he wins everything the gop wins as well as michigan, pennsylvania, wisconsin, and minnesota. all the while the media will be baffled that this happened. they'll have forgotten that the media is culturally new yorkian and coastal californian, and the rest of the country doesn't think the way they do. carson is the type of candidate who can bring the silent majority back. a large majority of voters find great virtue in a man who walks the walk even if he can't talk the talk. but carson does talk the talk. he just doesn't bluster, so the media thinks he's no good.
TLDR: the media says hillary would crush carson in the debates. what would really happen is her team would come away high-fiving each other at how brilliant and dominant she was, but then two days later their jaws would hit floor when the polls came back showing that people are not impressed by an elitist's snazzy rhetorical attempts to undress a man of great accomplishment and even greater humility.
in this frame, bernie is an opposite of carson. bernie suffered in the debate because of how unpolished he was. the left bases its decisions mostly on sophistication of rhetoric and demeanor. it's no wonder hillary whooped his ass. the left fears embarrassment more than anything. their heroes are people like obama: refined and clever. there's no embarrassing him because he's got all his bases covered.
the right couldn't care less about being embarrassed, because externalities do not embarrass their heroes. the outlaw josey wales emanates his strength without trying and is unfazed by the opinions of others. the left needs to win the argument, the right doesn't care about the argument.
I've never in my life seen such an agenda by the media to destroy somebody's character. They're unruly, condescending children. The tactic of lying and misdirection and turning molehills into mountains usually works, but it won't this time. No serious person thinks what Carson said about West Point is misleading.
The Gotcha! Journalism is only a symptom of the problem. Their agenda is to mold the world into their authoritarian social justice view, as evidenced by how they turn a blind eye to those who support greater central control and equalizing of outcomes while screaming like a banshee at anybody who efficaciously promotes freedom and responsibility.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6lrvu5y-d8
Who watchin the debate with me?
me
kasich needs to get his dumpy ass off the stage
kudos to cruz for being the only one up there who seems to understand one of the most important issues there is: monetary policy. i wish he could get on this stuff without appealing to gold bugs though. when he says "rules based policy" and points out how the fed's tightening created the 08 financial crisis, he's saying things in line with monetary experts.
My stream was choppy, im gonna try and watch it tomorrow. From what little I saw, a lot of the candidates look like a bunch of babies (Jeb especially). "Wah wah, I was promised time, gimme time, I got no time yesturday". No one wants a president thats gonna go to another country and pout about how things arent fair.
Two things:
1. Ben Carson is a fucking joke, and the only reason Trump hasn't completely destroyed the guy is just so that he can do so later closer to the primaries because he's such a ridiculously easy target.
2. Bernie Sanders' biggest problem is the same problem that Jeb Bush has, and that's that he's a total pussy.
I like Trump's position that we should drastically increase the tax on bagged shredded cheese. Make America grate again.
i lold.
trump will leave the race before carson. carson's base of support is extremely strong. trump's is afraid to even admit it to live pollsters.
Sauce on the live poll discrepancy? I feel like that's an awesome punchline to a joke that would be overheard at a statistician's conference.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
sorry can't find a source. im not sure if anybody has written about it. it's something that some of the statisticians on With All Due Respect (the only poli show i watch) have mentioned more than once. i forget their names.
basically, in robo polls, trump scores noticeably better relative to other candidates than in live polls.
the probability of trump exiting the race before NH is >50% imo. the probability of carson exiting the race before NH is <20%.
i think im picking cruz to win the nomination.
it should be noted that if you're against sjw victimhood culture, you should be against trump. he is one of the kings of using victimhood and sjw bullshit to his own advantage. a trump presidency would not be what it takes to get the country on a positive path.
if trump gets elected it wouldn't be from disaffected or fed-up voters setting things straight. it would be from the electorate engaging in the same type of reasoning that has caused the problems we're currently in. that reasoning would involve a propping up of policy ignorance, behavioral dissonance, and superficial stardom. it's the same shit that got us obama.
>50% that trump's asinine attacks on carson are the beginning of the end for the trump campaign. all his previous attacks on others worked partly because they came from a position of strength and were moderately reasonable. this however does not come from strength and looks more unhinged than usual.
granted i dont think we're gonna see how badly trump is going to perform until the IA caucuses. cherry red marker is written on the wall, saying he's going to underperform the polls and perceptions. when that happens it's basically game over. the only way he could survive that is if his numbers were still big enough that his typically bigger polls in NH could give him reason to think he would win that.
>30% that trump underperforms the IA polls by a fat two digits. he'd exit within days due to how much of a clown he would look like.
http://36.media.tumblr.com/0a1ce3df8...bs2o1_1280.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Trump's strategy of letting Carson hang around in the #2 spot for a little while because he's such an easy target to blow out of the water is coming full circle. He's now starting to let Carson have it, and Carson's numbers are bombing while Trump's increase.
So masterful is his tactic that even NPR is licking his balls now.
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/10/455331...-beat-the-game
i see where trump learned how to speakQuote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Quote:
"I put [him] down at the end of the hall. He didn't know how to make a bed. He didn't know how to shine his shoes. He had a problem, you know, with being a cadet. You know, being a cadet, you gotta take care of yourself," Dobias said.
i need to know where you get your informationQuote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Listen to the audio. It's just some guy and it's pretty natural speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Spoon, you got any Armenian ancestry in you?
And honestly though, that piece paints a great picture of the guy. Obsessive to the point of success, dominant over all his peers, a ladies' man... They check every single box for the intangibles of leadership even to the point where one guy worships him so much that he has a Donny Trump pullstring doll that he takes advice from.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
German and Cherokee here. What a mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Damn, if only someone had predicted this.Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - After a week in which he hosted Saturday Night Live and stood center-stage at a Republican debate, Donald Trump is surging among Republicans likely to cast votes in the party’s presidential primary.
According to the five-day rolling Reuters/Ipsos presidential poll, Trump has leapt some 17 percentage points among likely Republican voters since Nov. 6, when he was essentially tied with Ben Carson at about 25 percent. Trump now captures 42 percent of those voters while Carson has fallen off slightly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
you're seeing the snl boost. it had nothing to do with trump saying things about carson. you should be looking more at the latest new hampshire poll, where trump does quite well. granted, he has always been top in nh and carson has always not been so hot.
the only way trump wins iowa is if the evangelical vote splits.
Trump takes Iowa eaaaaaasily, by at least 12-15 percent over second place, who will not be Carson.
Had to do a double-check to make sure I was reading the BBC website, rather than the dailymash with this one. This guy is hilarious (sorry if this has already been discussed):
Trump 'would consider closing US mosques'
Posted at 21:56
US Republican presidential candidate and businessman Donald Trump has said he would consider closing mosques in the US.
"I would hate to do it, but it's something that you're going to have to strongly consider," Mr Trump told MSNBC.
He said the US would have to "watch" and "study" mosques because "lots of talk is going on" in them, and warned that US citizens would have to prepare to give up certain civil liberties.
bush could win by way of foreign policy. the 'war weariness" of the country is mostly among internet clackers; after as bad as isis has gotten and the paris attacks, w bush's foreign policy isnt going to be remembered negatively by any other than the clackers; and hw bush is viewed as a hero on foreign policy. jeb could easily tap into that, and if he outperforms his polls in iowa (which he almost most likely will if he goes in with the establishment still liking him), that could be his momentum to take the nomination.
trump never wins. it would be a miracle for him to break 1/3rd of the votes unless there's some serious spoiler effect going on. new hampshire is the one place that likes him because you can identify as any party to vote in the primary.
hu in iowa, carson or jindal or huckabee or cruz eeeeeeeeasily beat trump by at least 60/40.
trump's path to the nomination requires stuff happening that doesn't have the groundwork set to happen. he would need fervent get-out-the-vote followings. he doesnt have that. what he has is people who know his celebrity, who think his campaign is entertaining, and who don't come from any core group or show much fervency of conviction outside of just shaking the bed. you dont win elections by appealing to anger. the gop tried it in 2012.
Bush lost and isn't coming back. He's so lame in every single debate, and he comes off as lame-pompus. Like a dad lecturing his daughter about the evils of boys and drinking. Hes done.
Trump isn't as much of a fad as you say he is though. His numbers are still strong, and it's been months since he started. He's also far better than anyone up there at the advertising game, and will get tons of support just by playing that system better than them. His visibility is incredibly strong right now, and it's hiding other candidates whod actually have a shot.
It's tough to say if he can beat carson or the other promising ppl tho. Carson will lose if he keeps up this passive quiet bs he's been doing and doesn't learn some simple public speaking skills tho.
it's funny, carson's team thinks that's a strength. they want to appear above the fray. it's all about his integrity and humility, mixed with some common sense.
what im saying about trump is that he looks a decent bit stronger than he is. his name recognition is unusually high, his poll respondents are a little sketchy about their support, he's not running a ground campaign (which has always been needed to win), and he very probably has a low ceiling to his supporters.
i dont think bush is likely to come back, but he could based on foreign policy. if bush loses, this is the kinda of race it would look like. so that suggests that he's going to lose.
carson's ability to deflect has been underrated. i dont know if he can continue to do it as things ramp up, especially now that foreign policy is a big deal, but he possibly could. his dismantling of the press over his past was pretty effective.
also it can be said that he has been the "real" winner of each debate, as iirc he has gotten the most new followers and searches during and after each debate. i just cant shake the belief that there's a subtle itch in the back of republicans' minds that they want to put a black guy in. they get called racist all the damn time even though theyre not, and theyre tired of it.
there's an irony is how republicans are viewed as racist. much of gop policy on issues related to race reflect more of a "post-racism" viewpoint than democratic ones. it's as if they've gotten over it better than the left. but this makes them appear cold to it since they dont bend over backwards to extol the sanctity of civil rights. it's at least a theory.
ofc the media has done a stellar job of painting the gop as anti-civil rights and the democrats as pro-civil rights. that's probably why the democrats have the market cornered on the black vote. it's not about wanting "free stuff", but about fearing loss of hard fought civil rights.
I believe Star would call Carson "a fucking coon."
Hey, Bush got a speaking coach and apparently connected with an audience for once. Maybe hes not as done as I thought he was
I've been avoiding the Carson/Cain parallels for a couple of reasons. First, because sometimes I feel I go a little too far with racial humor considering I grew up around a lot of actual racists and they've undoubtedly had a lot of influence on the way I think. Even though I'm not consciously racist, there's no doubt I am unconsciously so I feel that I have to keep that in check.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
And second, because as funny as Carson is, I just don't think he'll ever be as funny or as scary as Cain was.
The story of how the media created Cain to have a fun story and then promptly dumped him along with everything that went into that is a super-interesting read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooolQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Trump pulls even further ahead, leaving Carson in his fucking dust.
WHO'S NEXT?
it's almost as if you should know better than to look only at one outlier pollster while ignoring the several established ones that tell a different story.
Every single recent poll has Trump kicking the dog shit out of Carson yet again.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The Bush supporters who jumped to Fiorina and then to Carson are jumping to Cruz, and Trump is going to 187 his retarded 5'8" Canadian ass too. He's killing them all one-by-one, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
they show no such thing. they show that trump's support hasnt changed just like has always been the case; and that trump does well in new hampshire while carson doesn't, as has always been the case; and that people are moving to rubio and cruz, likely from carson and bush, which was predicted.
check out ur boi in colorado. he's behind rubio! what a chump! this is very, very bad for trump. the worst. he's done, finished. i know many people, big people, smart people, they tell me trump is in freefall.
You can tell a lot about a man by who his enemies are, and if the pothead dipshits from Colorado are against Trump, that just means he's winning the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
i lold. your trolling isnt the worst in the world
it's possible that surveymonkey is the best pollster out there right now (it got the uk results very right). it has trump in the same range he has been forever (mid-high twenties" and carson losing support while rubio and mainly cruz gain. this makes total sense given political wisdom, too.
Cruz is the Canadian Mr. Bean.
Cruz is the cleverest mfer in the Rs today.