|
Kasich got a new website
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Kasich got a new website The best
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Kasich got a new website I hope he campaigns this badly when he tries to take Sherrod Brown's Senate seat in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Kasich got a new website 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Kasich got a new website quote:Note: By signing up you are waiving all constitutional rights, civil liberties, notion of privacy and subjecting yourself to a steady stream of hugely outrageous comments.  Trump's predicted response: Who the gently caress is Kasich?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Jim Gilmore is running for president?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:Jim Gilmore is running for president? who?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's doubtful Donald Trump will be remembered except as a footnote to the election of the first female president. Just the fact that we're now seriously talking about Donald Trump potentially winning the nomination has me questioning how true this really is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Just the fact that we're now seriously talking about Donald Trump potentially winning the nomination has me questioning how true this really is. Why? Nutbags win nominations all the time. The only reason Romney won the nomination in 2012 was that he vastly outspent everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Well a new Iowa poll came out yesterday with Jeb at 2% so his numbers only have one way to go! Shouldn't his numbers go up as Graham drops out and his supporters go to Jeb?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:The laws and regulations of society should exist and be designed with the intent of protecting the commons from free radicals. Harsh penalties for recklessly endangering others are the antioxidants of society Edit : wow, awful app, a lot of intervening pages there you weren't yelling me about...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why? Nutbags win nominations all the time. Not really though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Not really though. Depending on the scope you're defining, you might be right or wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Depending on the scope you're defining, you might be right or wrong. Big, if true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why? Nutbags win nominations all the time. The only reason Romney won the nomination in 2012 was that he vastly outspent everyone else. I might be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but Romney wasn't a "nutbag" by any definition (no more than anyone else in the GOP, at least) and Jeb! is the only person vastly outspending the rest of the field in this primary. Just to be clear, I don't seriously think Trump is going to win in a general. It's just starting to feel like absolute statements about Trump's chances don't really mean much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:I might be misunderstanding what you're saying here, but Romney wasn't a "nutbag" by any definition (no more than anyone else in the GOP, at least) Romney outspent the nutbags. With comparable funding he probably would have lost. Paradoxish posted:
This is kind of a corollary to the gambler's fallacy. You think that because something unlikely happens, we can't trust probability any longer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This is kind of a corollary to the gambler's fallacy. You think that because something unlikely happens, we can't trust probability any longer. No, I think that common wisdom in this case is drastically underestimating his actual chances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
So, serious question - what is the path to pre-convention victory for any of these guys? In all polls for the last month, Trump and Cruz together have over 50% of the vote. How would Rubio actually win this without A) forcing one of them out of the race and B) somehow siphoning off 10-20% of their votes? Because I honestly don't see either of those things happening, let alone both - even if someone finally hits Trump in the right way, most of his support is going to fall out to Cruz before it goes to Rubio. Along those same lines, Cruz can't possibly win until Trump flames out, but despite a lot of hand-wringing, there's no sign of that happening. And Trump's not going to make over 50% of the vote unless the Republican party decides to face to bloodshed and assume that if he's the front runner, he must be electable. Are we just assuming that the late winner-take-all primaries are going to push one person over the top? Because I don't see an easy way for 50%+1 of the delegates to go to one person. I know Joementum or Fried Chicken or someone usually comes in and rolls their eyes at the idea that the convention will mean anything, but guys, I think this year is different. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:No, I think that common wisdom in this case is drastically underestimating his actual chances. And the evidence you're using is that in the past, his chances were underestimated. You're also taking a very unrepresentative sample (i.e., GOP Primary voters) and extrapolating them onto the nation at large.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:I know Joementum or Fried Chicken or someone usually comes in and rolls their eyes at the idea that the convention will mean anything, but guys, I think this year is different. Trump can't actually turn out his "voters" in Iowa, which he'll lose to (most likely) Cruz or Rubio. Santorum, Huckabee, and probably Carson drop out at this point (if Carson has cash left he'll stay in just to keep building his mailing list). In New Hampshire the top three will be Rubio, and two of Jeb!, Cruz, Kasich, or Christie. At that point the field condenses to three or four candidates plus Trump and the winnowing continues through each primary state. Trump may stay in the race just to keep trolling Jeb! but after Super Tuesday it'll be clear he won't win. There are a couple other ways it could go down, but I think that's the most likely right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:So, serious question - what is the path to pre-convention victory for any of these guys? I could be completely wrong on this, but I think that when people say a brokered convention is impossible given contemporary primary rules, it remains unsaid that any close dispute between two candidates is settled over the rules votes. The nomination process itself doesn't go past the first ballot because any "test of strength" is going to happen in the voting process that happens before the nominations, when all the delegates are still unpledged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:So, serious question - what is the path to pre-convention victory for any of these guys? Pretty sure the general strategy for the GOP Establishment at this point is to make sure that somebody like a Rubio or a Christie can pick up enough delegates that at the time of the convention there isn't a clear majority for Trump/Cruz even if they are at the top of the pack. Then once the delegates are released after the first round of voting they can whip the establishment delegates behind a single candidate and
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Trump can't actually turn out his "voters" in Iowa, which he'll lose to (most likely) Cruz or Rubio. Santorum, Huckabee, and probably Carson drop out at this point (if Carson has cash left he'll stay in just to keep building his mailing list). In New Hampshire the top three will be Rubio, and two of Jeb!, Cruz, Kasich, or Christie. At that point the field condenses to three or four candidates plus Trump and the winnowing continues through each primary state. Trump may stay in the race just to keep trolling Jeb! but after Super Tuesday it'll be clear he won't win. Trump will probably lose Iowa but he's currently polling over 30% in NH, double that of the #2 spot. You really think he won't even place in the top 3 in NH? Same goes for SC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
this_is_hard posted:Trump will probably lose Iowa but he's currently polling over 30% in NH, double that of the #2 spot. You really think he won't even place in the top 3 in NH? Same goes for SC. I think his whole appeal is based on him being the best, the greatest, so much winning and when that doesn't happen his support will drop. Especially because it will change the media narrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And the evidence you're using is that in the past, his chances were underestimated. The evidence I'm using is that most of the people who predicted he would be done by now didn't take into account how much attention he'd receive thanks to the media's obsession with him. It's only going to get worse if he somehow wins the nomination. quote:You're also taking a very unrepresentative sample (i.e., GOP Primary voters) and extrapolating them onto the nation at large. No, I'm not, since I already said I don't think his chances are very good in a general. I'm just saying that I don't have much faith in the claims that his chances are effectively zero.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I think his whole appeal is based on him being the best, the greatest, so much winning and when that doesn't happen his support will drop. It turns out that while some of Trumps best friends are from Iowa and he loves them all, they're actually a bunch of losers that don't matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I think his whole appeal is based on him being the best, the greatest, so much winning and when that doesn't happen his support will drop. Fair enough, but I think a lot of that depends on how much he loses Iowa by. If it's just a few percentage points he can maintain that image, if he loses by double digits then it's a different story.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:The evidence I'm using is that most of the people who predicted he would be done by now didn't take into account how much attention he'd receive thanks to the media's obsession with him. Yes, so exactly what I said. quote:No, I'm not, since I already said I don't think his chances are very good in a general. I'm just saying that I don't have much faith in the claims that his chances are effectively zero. Effectively zero does mean his chances aren't very good. You seem to disagree for no reason other than "those people are wrong before, they must be wrong again!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
I have learned to not underestimate Trump or his completely insane supporters. You can't predict crazy, and I'm not ruling him out for the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
The FDA has officially lifted its ban on homosexual men donating blood. Now you just have to have not have gay sex for a year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Also, let's not forget that Iowa's Republican caucuses are surrounded by a giant fuzzy cloud of  in general, given the utter clusterfuck that they were in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:never not always don't post This but the opposite
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:The FDA has officially lifted its ban on homosexual men donating blood. Small steps 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
quote:Homosexual men 44-86 times more likely to be infected with HIV: "In 2007, MSM [Men Sex with Men] were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women." (Center for Disease Control, http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm) How is that restriction unreasonable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Toph Bei Fong posted:For some reason, I'm reminded of the WWF's Brawl For All, their attempt at a boxing/shootfighting tournament. "Dr. Death" Steve Williams was expected to sleep his way through the whole thing, but instead got his rear end handed to him by Bart Gunn of all people. The entire thing was an embarrassment, ruined multiple careers, and completely hosed up the narrative storytelling angle that the company had been trying for. Reality tends to do that. I am both ashamed I understand the reference and aghast at the analogy But yeah, Trump has channeled the new silent majority (uneducated racists) and things will not be the same for a while because of it. The media legitimized him and his rhetoric and there is no turning back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:The FDA has officially lifted its ban on homosexual men donating blood. When I donated plasma it was funny how much sex with men came up. Also funny that sex with another man before 1987 was okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Open the bloodgates 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I think his whole appeal is based on him being the best, the greatest, so much winning and when that doesn't happen his support will drop. People were saying the same thing when Trump's polls dropped below Carson's in Iowa, and then again when Cruz started passing him. So far I haven't seen much effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:00 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Open the bloodgates They are open, and they are fabulous
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:11
|
|
