|
KaptainKrunk posted:America is well and truly hosed when people have more sympathy for idiot evangelicals fighting a lost culture war and empty-suit-loving greedy fucks than working-class whites who have been abandoned by both parties. white people, actually, can gently caress themselves
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
AllanGordon posted:This is the end for Trump. Rubio picking up all the "smart conservatives," with a lot of pretty conservative types also voting for him. Carson, Trump, and Cruz splitting from the same basic base. Nationally, Trump still probably has the widest range of support, but it'll be interesting to see how the next polling cycle works out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:Cruz and the no hopers are just jesus grifters. They don't campaign in Iowa to be president. I mean, I know I am going out on a limb to assume Cruz is transitioning to wing nut welfare already. As much as a poo poo he is he should be smart enough to know he doesn't have a national platform. But I thought before the results trump was going too hard for this. Iowa isn't worth it. But the momentum narrative was too important for him. You say this, yet: Cruz don't care what he gotta do to win, so long as he wins. Certainly explains Cruz' coming in first. The risk by doing this poo poo is that the candidate you do it to can still endorse someone else. I think it's clear that Cruz has a clear trend of being willing to engage in innovative ratfuckery. There's a good reason why he's the most hated man in the Senate. What does Ben Carson really want? More books? For America to realize that now is not the time to talk about race? Or a promise for appointment as HHS secretary?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
blue squares posted:white people, actually, can gently caress themselves Tryin to over here
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
So that's how he pulled it off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Trump's concession speech tonight said a lot. He's in this. He's learning. No "how stupid are the people of Iowa", no meltdown, no nastiness. He's in to win. Everything depends on NH. If he wins he's right back on top. If he loses then yeah, it gets bad for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Isn't Trump up by like 20 points in NH? I mean, I know the media narrative will be that he "lost" (even though he only got 1 less delegate than Cruz) but surely that much of a swing is unlikely. The fear for Trump would be that A. his support is soft and would get demoralized now that he's no longer on top and B. that Rubio will consolidate all the Jeb/Kasich/Christie voters. We don't yet know that either of those will happen and Thursday's debate will feature all three of those folks plus Trump and Cruz trying to...narc-o the Marco? It'll be interesting to see how Rubio holds up under real scrutiny. If Trump holds on in NH we have a real race. If Rubio wins in NH, we're in for a Rubio-Cruz match that Rubio will eventually dominate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Perhaps. Yeah I don't. I always felt that for Trump to win the nomination he needed the perfect storm of Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina, and could lose Nevada, and move into a big super Tuesday. I always felt that if he lost Iowa the Trump balloon would pop. I mean he wasn't slaughtered, but drat did he underperform compared to the polls. Now to win he needs to spend money, lots of money, and somehow change the narrative and maintain his lead in New Hampshire... Meanwhile Rubio over-performed and seems to gearing up for a big bounce in New Hampshire and onward. Cruz meanwhile is poo poo. Sure he won Iowa, but it's meaningless in the end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Bankruptcy is actually not a bad thing and is a great way to restructure ongoing debts to get better rates. Except even chapter 11 means you've taken on more debt than you can service so it isn't some magic wand where the only thing that happens is "restructuring to get better rates." When you look at what had to be ceded to creditors in Trump's bankruptcies it's pretty obvious it's a habitual mismanagement issue since the agreements always end up with Trump retreating to a token stake so that the creditors can have someone competent run it. Basically "this rear end in a top hat needs to get the gently caress out of the kitchen if you want us to agree to this plan." Then again maybe you're talking from the experience of thinking you can just file bankruptcy whenever without having to follow the law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:So that's how he pulled it off. Potentially, you'd have to go back and look at Carson's supporters' 2nd polling choice. It does go to show that if the field were narrower going into Iowa, say, only five candidates, Trump may not have had a lane to break out with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Rubio has also never really been under any intense scrutiny. I know the late rise was part of his plan, but we'll see if he's able to survive the attention he's about to get.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
blue squares posted:white people, actually, can gently caress themselves I think you'll find that white people are pretty good actually, and perhaps it is you who should go gently caress yourself, you racist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Yeah I don't. I always felt that for Trump to win the nomination he needed the perfect storm of Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina, and could lose Nevada, and move into a big super Tuesday. I think you'll find Trump being a lot more... Presidential with his rhetoric. Now that Jeb!'s been absolutely crushed, it's the perfect time to reach out to his donor base by selling yourself as the only candidate able to unite the tea party and business wings against Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Cruz rat fuckery against Carson here is pretty cool if true. I mean I hate Ted Cruz, but that's a pretty funny maneuver on his part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
aw, I'm super-disappointed. And the media is of course spinning this as a win for Rubio, somehow. fuckers are so transparent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I think you'll find that white people are pretty good actually, and perhaps it is you who should go gently caress yourself, you racist. wrong
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
TheTatteredKing posted:Cruz and the no hopers are just jesus grifters. They don't campaign in Iowa to be president. I mean, I know I am going out on a limb to assume Cruz is transitioning to wing nut welfare already. As much as a poo poo he is he should be smart enough to know he doesn't have a national platform. But I thought before the results trump was going too hard for this. Iowa isn't worth it. But the momentum narrative was too important for him. I think a lot of it had to do with Trump wanting the media to take him serious as a candidate as well. If you don't have any ground game / appearances in Iowa then you're usually considered a joke campaign. I don't know maybe not winning will hurt him, but at the same time Iowa republicans are def not his strong supporters and he's only down a delegate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Cruz rat fuckery against Carson here is pretty cool if true. Well, he did send out the fake paper and the overly aggressive push mailer. I wouldn't discount what Ted Cruz would be willing to do to get what Ted Cruz wants. Folks have been worrying about Trump being a demagogue, when really, Trump's quite reasonable when compared to Cruz. Calling it now, if its a race between Cruz and Rubio, expect Cruz to try to ratfuck Rubio on having a black lover.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
This is a good title for an article (it's not what the URL would make you think) http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/01/donald_trump_lost_the_iowa_caucus_good_job_america.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You say this, yet: While yeah if anyone did that it would be the Cruz camp, I'll wait on confirmation for anything Carson says. We still haven't found that grain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Trump is not out of the running, but the importance of Iowa is that his 'aura of invulnerability' is totally crushed. All the polls had him leading, yet he loses - the next time he starts gloating over a poll, all another candidate can just point out that he lost Iowa despite polling well for it. Which will work against Trump, because he's built himself up on Being A Winner. The results are a real blow. I have faith that he'll come up with a good strategy here. Underestimating Trump is just as dangerous as overestimating him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:aw, I'm super-disappointed. And the media is of course spinning this as a win for Rubio, somehow. fuckers are so transparent. Rubio is the Jamaican Bobsled Team.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:I think a lot of it had to do with Trump wanting the media to take him serious as a candidate as well. If you don't have any ground game / appearances in Iowa then you're usually considered a joke campaign. I don't know maybe not winning will hurt him, but at the same time Iowa republicans are def not his strong supporters and he's only down a delegate. I think he over did it is all. He could have spent half the time and publicly dismissed Iowa to focus on NH like half the field.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:You want to spend months following a Cruz/Hillary election? You have a higher pain tolerance than I do, I'd find a new hobby. Cruz as the nominee would take all of the joy out of following politics. A Cruz nomination would be magical. Can you imagine all the amazingly pained GOP faces as they line up behind the candidate? I'm pretty sure some people would go 'gently caress that' flip over their table and stab him in the back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Obviously Trump is going to win New Hampshire. That's not the point. The point is that if Donald Trump wants to win the Republican Nomination, despite the fact that the powers that be will engage in all the delegate fuckery necessary to make it not so, he needed a loving mandate from the primary voters. Iowa was a symbol. Not just in the sense of "it's the first one guys!" because that's a useless metric. What mattered was that if Trump could win Iowa, he could win anywhere. And his supporters, and the media, needed to think that he could win anywhere. If Trump had written Iowa off as a lost cause, said poo poo about Huckabee and Santorum being pathetic losers, and coasted into second with a win, it wouldn't matter. Because he could just say "I could have won Iowa if I really really wanted to, but the media just hypes it up to be so much more important than it actually is," and boom all those people who are like "why the gently caress is Iowa first" form a connection with Trump. But no, Trump went all in on Iowa, devoting the past two and a half weeks to piledriving Ted Cruz, culminating in skipping the Iowa debate in a move that was essentially him negging the entire state of Iowa. He clearly wanted to win. He wanted it. And he lost. And for a guy who says he's gonna make us sick of winning because we're gonna be winning all the time, that right there's a deep wound. It won't kill him right away, but the magic is gone. Donald Trump is mortal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
so is this thread tolerable now that Trump got Stumped?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Why is everyone saying now "this proves all the statisticians were right"? They predicted Trump winning!!! WTF!!! Also it's pretty funny that throughout the day the clear message was going to be a Rubio win, even before any votes were cast. What a sham I'm never following politics again ... I mean until New Hampshire that is...
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Really not buying that it was the ground game that hurt Trump, at least not that alone. 120k caucusgoers in 2012 and 180k caucusgoers in 2016 tells a pretty powerful story of voter enthusiasm. Trump got about 45,000 votes to Cruz' 51,000. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both got ~30k four years ago, and Huckabee won a "big" victory with 41k voters eight years ago. Note that Huck's 41k voters in 2008 meant 34% of the vote and Trump's 45k voters this year were only 24% of the vote. Trump's people showed up. Cruz's people just turned out better. Ted Cruz really pulled this off in a dramatic way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Yes! I finally get my own thread title 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Except even chapter 11 means you've taken on more debt than you can service so it isn't some magic wand where the only thing that happens is "restructuring to get better rates." When you look at what had to be ceded to creditors in Trump's bankruptcies it's pretty obvious it's a habitual mismanagement issue since the agreements always end up with Trump retreating to a token stake so that the creditors can have someone competent run it. Basically "this rear end in a top hat needs to get the gently caress out of the kitchen if you want us to agree to this plan." Casino accounting let's you do a lot of magic actually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Top Bunk Wanker posted:I have faith that he'll come up with a good strategy here. Underestimating Trump is just as dangerous as overestimating him. My gut says "assume Jeb!'s lane." Yeah, yeah, Jeb!'s got no lane. He really did, though --- he was just too good of a man to capture attention in a race that included Cruz and Trump. Say what you will about his coming in 7th, Jeb!'s still got one of, if not the, best campaign infrastructures in the race. Whoever gets that infrastructure, likely gets a bump significant enough to change a few states. Trump/Bush 2016: Making America Great Again "I did good, right dad? You started as Reagan's Vice President, and Don's the new gripper! Can I get a hug now? MOMMMM, TELL W TO QUIT TRYING TO PAINT ME"
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Trump getting snookered by exaggerated poll numbers is pretty good irony.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
Trump Stumped
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Rocks posted:Why is everyone saying now "this proves all the statisticians were right"? They predicted Trump winning. And of course the breakdown and stories of the caucusing But until then, never again
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:Casino accounting let's you do a lot of magic actually. Much like the dartboard valuation of the Trump name.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Really not buying that it was the ground game that hurt Trump, at least not that alone. 120k caucusgoers in 2012 and 180k caucusgoers in 2016 tells a pretty powerful story of voter enthusiasm. Trump got about 45,000 votes to Cruz' 51,000. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both got ~30k four years ago, and Huckabee won a "big" victory with 41k voters eight years ago. Note that Huck's 41k voters in 2008 meant 34% of the vote and Trump's 45k voters this year were only 24% of the vote. It's a matter of not enough of Trump's supporters showing up while Cruz and Rubio's came out in droves. The Trump Effect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
SpiderHyphenMan posted:
If this was the case he would have melted down tonight. He didn't. He did what he's done the entire time, made it as positive for him as possible. Dehumanize yourself and face to Trumpshed
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/694388155877822464 Wow!! So many good hot takes tonight!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Patter Song posted:Really not buying that it was the ground game that hurt Trump, at least not that alone. 120k caucusgoers in 2012 and 180k caucusgoers in 2016 tells a pretty powerful story of voter enthusiasm. Trump got about 45,000 votes to Cruz' 51,000. Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both got ~30k four years ago, and Huckabee won a "big" victory with 41k voters eight years ago. Note that Huck's 41k voters in 2008 meant 34% of the vote and Trump's 45k voters this year were only 24% of the vote. Why did Cruz's people turn out better? Because of his ground game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2016 06:20
|
|
