|
Combed Thunderclap posted:It's especially glorious since we've been bombing the poo poo out of ISIS where possible for months. Actually, I think you'll find that we've bombed nothing and Obama has been playing golf and loving Bill Ayers in a bathhouse
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
zoux posted:You still think he gets crushed in the general though, right? evilweasel posted:Definitely, nothing's changed about how toxic he is to everyone else. Republicans just have had it with this "sanity" business.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Agreed. drat you Joementum!  Adar posted:As much as I wish that were the case he is still dead. Yes, he or Carson now basically have Iowa locked. That is the point the rest of the party will panic and there will be enormous pressure on everyone not named {current establishment frontrunner} to drop out. Now, you might say that these people don't give a poo poo and up until a certain point you would be right, but Jeb/Rubio and to a lesser extent Paul are still Republican enough to understand the party would be destroyed if they don't, so somebody is going to be someone else's VP nom and that will be the end of that. I can't wait for the adults to step in and pull the plug on Trump in spite of a gigantic lead in the GOP polls. The reaction will be amazing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:He won't be the nominee I need you to explain this. I really need to know why there are some goons who are still confident that there is no way Trump could end up being the republican nominee. I'm also wondering why there are goons who are thinking that Clinton would wreck Trump...Kennedy beat Nixon in the debates because Nixon was a sweaty old man, Bush beat Kerry because Kerry was a boring withered manequinn, and Trump loving loves his own voice. 2016 is going to be the dumbest voter turnout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes he will. The situations he wins are now much more reasonable than where he doesn't. Everyone's been talking about how the establishment always finally wins, but he's taking those voters. Even in the best case scenario for Trump where he stays atop the polls nationally and in some states the delegate count just doesn't add up for him. Unless something splits the vote on the anti-Trump side, the absolute best case scenario is he's roughly even on delegates after March 26th. The majority of states after that are moderate and don't poll good for Trump. In that best cast scenario the super delegates (7.5%) and other delegate shenanigans can easily prevent Trump from winning the nomination. Trump simply won't have the margin of victory to secure enough delegates to win even in his best case scenario. I still think other factors are going to torpedo Trump even before Feb 1st but that's a lot more subjective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:
Because significant numbers of his own party will not vote for him, even against a Clinton. And while voting against the other guy isn't generally a winning strategy, his rhetoric is providing Hispanics with very good incentives to vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
I mean, what's the path here. Carson or Trump wins Iowa, and some of the kiddy table people are out who relied on Iowa - Santorum, Huckabee, maybe one or two others. But they have no support anywhere, who cares. We go to NH. All of the establishment people wrote off Iowa long ago and have their hopes pinned on New Hampshire. We have Christie, Paul, Jeb!, Rubio, Kasich, all still competing for that "moderate establishment" vote. None drop out before, because they've still got a shot. Trump is massively winning New Hampshire right now. You need at least three seperate candidates to all consolidate their voters into one to win. But (a) none of them are dropping out, and (b) a lot of the candidates with support have voters who like Trump just fine. If Carson goes on book tour, his voters aren't just all going to Rubio. If Bush sees the light and jumps out, sure many of his voters go to Rubio. But many go to Kasich instead. Or Christie. Or Fiorina. So Trump wins or gets second place in Iowa and New Hampshire. Carson might have won Iowa. Everyone else is in ruins and here, maybe second-tier establishment people start withdrawing. Jeb! is out, Christie is out, Kasich is out. Why does "everyone else" consolidate around Rubio? No voters really like him. They all hate immigrants and don't trust Rubio on immigration, and Trump is busy reminding them of that. Why does Rubio suddenly start beating out Trump in states where he's had no time to campaign? Trump will be getting even more press than usual because he'll be winning, and everyone has been assuming he couldn't survive to the actual primaries and suddenly he's winning. He's national news, everyone's talking about him, he gets free airtime every time he opens his mouth. How does Rubio get through?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Even in the best case scenario for Trump where he stays atop the polls nationally and in some states the delegate count just doesn't add up for him. Unless something splits the vote on the anti-Trump side, the absolute best case scenario is he's roughly even on delegates after March 26th. The majority of states after that are moderate and don't poll good for Trump. I don't think Trump is going to be the nominee either but if they have to wait until the convention to take him out the backlash from the base is going to be epic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:Even in the best case scenario for Trump where he stays atop the polls nationally and in some states the delegate count just doesn't add up for him. Unless something splits the vote on the anti-Trump side, the absolute best case scenario is he's roughly even on delegates after March 26th. The majority of states after that are moderate and don't poll good for Trump. What's the basis for this? Roughly even on delegates with who? As for superdelegates taking it away from Trump, there's only two scenarios I see as worse for the Republican Party than Trump getting the nomination, and that's one of them (Carson getting it is the other). And that's probably the worst, because it will split the party: Trump's supporters will be livid, and rightly so. They won't support the nominee and neither will Trump - that's the one case I see a third party run. And he'll probably beat the Republican in the general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Didn't Lex Luthor become president in the comics. He does at least in the one where Superman becomes the Czar of Russia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:drat you Joementum! There aren't any adults left. The adults are Jeb! I mean, poo poo, they're trying, it just ain't working: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/17/gop-establishment-operative-cant-get-donors-for-anti-trump-super-pac/ Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
I've said this before but I absolutely adore how just casually using Jeb! has migrated into actual journalism. Hes basically at Dan Quayle levels of nobody taking him seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Why are the independent voters voting either far left or right in the polls?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Why are the independent voters voting either far left or right in the polls? Because the middle doesn't really exist. Pew has a great series on this that I'll post when I find it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Why are the independent voters voting either far left or right in the polls? Many 'independents' these days are people who think the parties are too centrist rather than too extreme. Think a poster here who is fiercely liberal/socialist/whatever but thinks the Democratic party is a party of sellouts/corporations, or a tea partier. They're not up for grabs between the real candidates: the question is if they vote at all (or vote for a joke candidate instead of a real one).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's not Iowa that's the issue. Iowa goes for unelectable loons all the time. It's that Trump has New Hampshire locked, and if an establishment guy can't beat Trump in New Hampshire he can't anywhere, and Trump is becoming the second choice of other people more and more. New Hampshire doesn't matter at all in this scenario. The media, by which I mean Fox and everyone to the right of Fox because no other media will matter to anyone voting in this thing, will lock itself into Anti-Trump Will Save Us mode from Iowa onwards. If he wins NH they will reorient around the last remaining non-clown. If he wins South Carolina (okay, in this case it's when) they will double down on the non-clown or Mittens or GHWB's wheelchair. In the absolute best case for Trump he gets to Super Tuesday with a delegate lead, but then he rolls into too many states where he insta-loses on poll closing. Freepers will stay the course regardless, but the message that Trump cannot become President in any way short of a lightning strike will still resonate once Rush et al repeat it enough times. If there's a plausible clown path to the nom it leads through Carson, not Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Why are the independent voters voting either far left or right in the polls? If you actually do deep analysis of the polling there are almost no actual "independent" voters in America these days. Everyone is extremely partisan on an issue-by-issue basis; some people look like moderates or independents because they're hyper-partisan on an odd mix of issues (say, they're gay, but they hate immigrants; or they're catholic so they hate abortion but also support social welfare spending).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
smg77 posted:I don't think Trump is going to be the nominee either but if they have to wait until the convention to take him out the backlash from the base is going to be epic. If he goes to the convention with the clear majority, they have to pick him. If they pull backroom shenanigans, the people who are voting for Trump will revolt in amazing fashion, GOP turnout will suffer across the country as the majority feels the Republicans have become the new Liberals. The Dems retake the senate, the House gets very blue, state legislatures suffer - it would be the end of the GOP as a party. They would not gently caress Trump out of his rightful throne lest they feel the wrath of the king (and his subjects).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Adar posted:New Hampshire doesn't matter at all in this scenario. The media, by which I mean Fox and everyone to the right of Fox because no other media will matter to anyone voting in this thing, will lock itself into Anti-Trump Will Save Us mode from Iowa onwards. If he wins NH they will reorient around the last remaining non-clown. If he wins South Carolina (okay, in this case it's when) they will double down on the non-clown or Mittens or GHWB's wheelchair. In the absolute best case for Trump he gets to Super Tuesday with a delegate lead, but then he rolls into too many states where he insta-loses on poll closing. Hasn't Rush and Fox been relatively pro-Trump? Ultimately, they're both driven by ratings to an even greater degree than they are driven by political partisanship, and Trump brings the ratings. pathetic little tramp posted:If he goes to the convention with the clear majority, they have to pick him. If they pull backroom shenanigans, the people who are voting for Trump will revolt in amazing fashion, GOP turnout will suffer across the country as the majority feels the Republicans have become the new Liberals. The Dems retake the senate, the House gets very blue, state legislatures suffer - it would be the end of the GOP as a party. They would not gently caress Trump out of his rightful throne lest they feel the wrath of the king (and his subjects). This is my thought also. If it gets to the point where backroom shenanigans are required, the "sane" people (read: business interests) will either just give up on the Republicans and back Hillary instead, or reconcile themselves to a goldwater-esque "idealistic" defeat this cycle and keep backing Trump to earn brownie points with the base. If Trump has a clear lead after Super Tuesday then going against him becomes heretical. Remember, all the other candidates swore an oath to support the nominee! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:Do Republicans have super Delegates? I'm pretty sure that was a DNC thing. They have delegates who function similarly, but are much more closely tied to their home states' votes in most instances and are much fewer in number overall. If Trump makes much more trouble, I suspect that might chance as the DNC introduced superdelegates largely to prevent outsider fuckery in the party's nomination process to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:If he goes to the convention with the clear majority, they have to pick him. If they pull backroom shenanigans, the people who are voting for Trump will revolt in amazing fashion, GOP turnout will suffer across the country as the majority feels the Republicans have become the new Liberals. The Dems retake the senate, the House gets very blue, state legislatures suffer - it would be the end of the GOP as a party. They would not gently caress Trump out of his rightful throne lest they feel the wrath of the king. On the other hand, you are also talking about a party run and managed by a bunch of rich old dudes used to getting their way and fueled by spite.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Hasn't Rush and Fox been relatively pro-Trump? They're both hedging because right now preaching to the Freeper choir is free money, but both will take the establishment line as soon as they realize what they say matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Hasn't Rush and Fox been relatively pro-Trump? Fox is having trouble deciding whether to embrace the madness or try, and fail, to draw back from the abyss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Adar posted:They're both hedging because right now preaching to the Freeper choir is free money, but both will take the establishment line as soon as they realize what they say matters. See, I suspect the exact opposite will happen. Ultimately they're both driven by ratings. Trump is the god of ratings, and neither Rush nor Fox have ever backed a weak horse over a strong one. They'll give the base the red meat it wants. Ultimately, neither Rush nor Fox is actually beholden to Republican "elites" -- they're beholden to the raw public mass, and they'll keep tossing meat to that Sarlacc until they're devoured by it. This whole Republican primary has been defined by the search for a not-Trump candidate. Eventually the "establishment," or rather what's left of it, will realize there is no such animal, and they'll either jump on the Trump or they'll jump off and back Hillary instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Adar posted:New Hampshire doesn't matter at all in this scenario. The media, by which I mean Fox and everyone to the right of Fox because no other media will matter to anyone voting in this thing, will lock itself into Anti-Trump Will Save Us mode from Iowa onwards. If he wins NH they will reorient around the last remaining non-clown. If he wins South Carolina (okay, in this case it's when) they will double down on the non-clown or Mittens or GHWB's wheelchair. In the absolute best case for Trump he gets to Super Tuesday with a delegate lead, but then he rolls into too many states where he insta-loses on poll closing. Trump is leading in South Carolina. His closest competition is Carson and nobody is going to coalesce around Carson from the establishment. And what are these states that Trump is losing in? He's winning in Florida, which is the only other state being polled, and he's winning nationally (by a lot). Why is he actually losing in the states not being polled? And Fox has been trying to kill him for months, what's going to change? The things that make him unelectable are things republican primary voters actually believe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
I mean look, Rush and Fox can make anyone seem preferable to voting for Hillary to the republican primary crowd. "Timothy McVeigh: well, he's dead, so he can't do anything else bad" But that's not what you're supposing: you're supposing that they can make Republican primary voters believe they prefer Marco Rubio over Donald Trump. How are they going to pull that off if their earlier attempts didn't work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Maybe it's really true that This Time It's Different with Trump, but there are so many examples in the history of modern primaries of candidates like him falling apart when the voting starts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
I like thinking of the Republican base as a Sarlacc. Quite apt, actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Trump is leading in South Carolina. His closest competition is Carson and nobody is going to coalesce around Carson from the establishment. And what are these states that Trump is losing in? He's winning in Florida, which is the only other state being polled, and he's winning nationally (by a lot). Why is he actually losing in the states not being polled? And Fox has been trying to kill him for months, what's going to change? The things that make him unelectable are things republican primary voters actually believe. because deep down fox and the establisment know they over-indoctrinated with the red meat and now anyone far right is a nut bag. its better to go with the "moderate" guy who will bend over when told. they know that outside the party all their front runners look like nut bags.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:What's the basis for this? Roughly even on delegates with who? The basis is an assumption on my part for that best case scenario for Trump: I'm assuming that there is no one splitting the anti-Trump vote by March 1st. Carson and Cruz are out or probably under the 15% threshold in most states. Jeb or Rubio has dropped out. Even if there is some vote splitting going on the elected delegates aren't locked in at the convention from dropped out candidates IIRC. I think Trump's polling in states like CO (Rubio polling ahead of Trump) are indicative of what his numbers will look like in NY,CA,WA and other big delegate states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:The basis is an assumption on my part for that best case scenario for Trump: I'm assuming that there is no one splitting the anti-Trump vote by March 1st. Carson and Cruz are out or probably under the 15% threshold in most states. Jeb or Rubio has dropped out. My read is that you'd have been right a month or two ago, where Trump was nobody's second choice. I don't believe that's true anymore though: I think as people drop out Trump's numbers increase as he captures good chunks of their voters. It is possible that Rubio could capture some of the bluer states, but I think he'll have been facing an unbroken string of losses up until then to Trump, and I think that someone whose main argument is electability just can't afford to lose as frequently as I think Rubio will be losing. Trump is leading in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. He, or Carson, will win Iowa. So the establishment candidate is going to go into the March 1 Super Tuesday election not having won a single state and trying to argue they're the most electable. How do you pull that off? And it's not like the March 1 states are particularly blue - the only blueish states are Mass, VT, and Minnesota against a lot of red states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:because deep down fox and the establisment know they over-indoctrinated with the red meat and now anyone far right is a nut bag. its better to go with the "moderate" guy who will bend over when told. they know that outside the party all their front runners look like nut bags. I don't doubt the establishment wants Not-Trump. I doubt that the establishment can control the monster they've unleashed. They've spent decades convincing them that anyone who tries to restrain them is a traitor, I think if they try to be the voice of sanity they'll just get devoured themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Maybe it's really true that This Time It's Different with Trump, but there are so many examples in the history of modern primaries of candidates like him falling apart when the voting starts. This and the fact that a Trump win would upend so much we think about politics are the only things that keep me from giving Trump the mortal lock. If Walker or Bush were polling Trump's numbers right now we'd say it was already over.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Maybe it's really true that This Time It's Different with Trump, but there are so many examples in the history of modern primaries of candidates like him falling apart when the voting starts. Like who? My recollection is they had all collapsed by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
zoux posted:This and the fact that a Trump win would upend so much we think about politics are the only things that keep me from giving Trump the mortal lock. If Walker or Bush were polling Trump's numbers right now we'd say it was already over. That's also what's made me take Trump's candidacy more seriously than I might otherwise. Jeb! was supposed to be the unstoppable guy, the "smart Bush", with all the Bush family pull and a $100 million dollar SuperPAC behind him, crushing all who oppose him. Instead he couldn't even answer "knowing what we know now, would you invade Iraq", and it's only gotten worse from there. By conventional logic, Jeb! was supposed to sleepwalk to the nomination; instead there are people asking when (not if, when) he'll drop out. fade5 fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Nov 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Maybe it's really true that This Time It's Different with Trump, but there are so many examples in the history of modern primaries of candidates like him falling apart when the voting starts. Eh, not really? Perot is the closest analogue and he only fell apart because he dropped out on his own initiative halfway through the race. Trump is kindof his own creature. Historically America has had very few socially conservative, economically liberal major candidates (partly because they can't get funding, usually). He seems right in line with someone like William Jennings Bryan or Goldwater or to a lesser extent Huey Long -- populists who are loser candidates but great in primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Like who? My recollection is they had all collapsed by now. I'm sure we can argue back-and-forth about how much they're like Trump, but among early primary poll leaders who were never going to win the nomination there's Robertson, Giuliani, and Gingrich. Granted, Trump really is different than those guys in some ways, but not in his polling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:My read is that you'd have been right a month or two ago, where Trump was nobody's second choice. I don't believe that's true anymore though: I think as people drop out Trump's numbers increase as he captures good chunks of their voters. I think that is a good point. If Trump wins the first 3 or 4 states, and even if it's a single anti-Trump candidate, there will be quite a bit of negative press from the losses. However on the second choice stuff every single head-to-head matchup with Trump/Rubio or Trump/Cruz has been a virtual tie. I think the non-Trump non-Carson candidates will probably be the ones to benefit most when the race thins out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't doubt the establishment wants Not-Trump. I doubt that the establishment can control the monster they've unleashed. They've spent decades convincing them that anyone who tries to restrain them is a traitor, I think if they try to be the voice of sanity they'll just get devoured themselves. I'm sure all the claims and calls of "Washington outsider" haven't helped. I really hope they feel like idiots now that literal Washington outsiders are kicking their asses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, not really? Would Huey Long not gotten farther up had he not been assassinated? He did serve both as Governor and as Senator, and declared an intention to run just before his death.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2015 01:07
|
|
