EPTBasically the only difference between the worst case scenario for the establishment and what actually happened is Rubio winning Minnesota. Cruz won enough states that he has zero reason to even consider dropping out. Kasich did well enough, without winning, to stick around as well. Trump cleaned up and with all his opponents sticking around he can pretty much spend all his time in the states voting March 15 (e.g. Florida and Ohio) and be fine since everything between now and then is effectively proportional.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3119
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
Basically the only difference between the worst case scenario for the establishment and what actually happened is Rubio winning Minnesota. Cruz won enough states that he has zero reason to even consider dropping out. Kasich did well enough, without winning, to stick around as well. Trump cleaned up and with all his opponents sticking around he can pretty much spend all his time in the states voting March 15 (e.g. Florida and Ohio) and be fine since everything between now and then is effectively proportional. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 02 2016 23:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Well, we (leftists) use white supremacists' endorsement of Trump as partial evidence of Trump running a racist campaign. I don't think that is completely unreasonable - there's a reason why what has traditionally been non-voting racists suddenly decide to involve themselves, and that is that part of his statement resonates with them. But then, I write this realizing that the genuinely racist makes up a small portion of his base. Still enough to judge him based on, but then, I also have to accept that people will judge my side of the political spectrum based on what a vocal and ridiculous minority states or claims. For my opinion that Trump should distance himself from the white supremacist vote to have any real weight behind it, I must be consistent, and similarly distance myself from what I consider ridiculous leftists. The main issue with Trump as a candidate isn’t that he is overtly racist, but if we have confidence that he will stop racism in the US if the state refuses to. There are plenty of states in the US that have a strong history of racism and most of the time it was the federal government that stepped in to assure minorities civil rights. Governments are rarely overtly racist. They allow racism to exist and expand. Trump being wishy washy about denouncing the David Duke is another sign he won’t take action against his supporters, even if they are promoting hate crimes. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On March 02 2016 23:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: Well, we (leftists) use white supremacists' endorsement of Trump as partial evidence of Trump running a racist campaign. I don't think that is completely unreasonable - there's a reason why what has traditionally been non-voting racists suddenly decide to involve themselves, and that is that part of his statement resonates with them. But then, I write this realizing that the genuinely racist makes up a small portion of his base. Still enough to judge him based on, but then, I also have to accept that people will judge my side of the political spectrum based on what a vocal and ridiculous minority states or claims. For my opinion that Trump should distance himself from the white supremacist vote to have any real weight behind it, I must be consistent, and similarly distance myself from what I consider ridiculous leftists. They gave press credentials to the host of a white supremacist radio program. So there is that. http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/political-cesspool-host-james-edwards-reports-inside-donald-trumps-press-pen/ The Trump supporters I see are at the place where they disavow anything negative about him as a spin from the mainstream media. It's not a good look, especially in retrospect. But we saw it with the Bundy's and everyone else, and eventually it catches up to them. You might think they're incompetent, but when you think it's a conspiracy in aggregate, you're taking a losing longterm battle. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28910 Posts
On March 02 2016 23:52 Trainrunnef wrote: Found an interesting article yesterday regarding a supposed rise in American authoritarianism. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism That, to me is where Trump is really scary. The lies, whatever. Catering to extreme points of view to establish a voter base among traditional non-voters, whatever. I mean, that part is scary, but it's not the worst. But the fact that he finds common ground with Putin, that he quotes Mussolini.. Honestly, if there's one part of Trump's political platform I find genuine, it's his penchant for fascism. And in a way, I gotta admit that there's some degree of beauty through running a campaign catering towards the lowest common denominator, which truly showcases the flaws and dangers of democracy while essentially running on a 'I'm a strong leader and that's what the country needs' platform. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 02 2016 23:59 Jibba wrote: They gave press credentials to the host of a white supremacist radio program. So there is that. To be honest, I am pretty sure the White House would give them press credentials too. Previous press secretaries have said they would give a press pass to the National Inquirer if they asked. A lot of the time they just don’t bother ask because they had to deal with other reporters and be professional. But the fact that they are asking is another matter. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On March 03 2016 00:01 Plansix wrote: To be honest, I am pretty sure the White House would give them press credentials too. Previous press secretaries have said they would give a press pass to the National Inquirer if they asked. A lot of the time they just don’t bother ask because they had to deal with other reporters and be professional. But the fact that they are asking is another matter. They denied them for the Huffington Post and Des Moines Register. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On March 03 2016 00:01 xDaunt wrote: So I watched all of those Can't Stump the Trump videos. I'd seen pretty much all of the footage before, and I remember being focused on what Trump was saying (more often than not, the ridiculousness of it). What I noticed this time around was the dramatic superiority of Trump's body language to all of his victims'. His self-control is remarkable. He's completely unflappable. The same can't be said for the other candidates. Poor Bush, for example, was a visual wreck whenever Trump confronted him. It didn't matter what Bush said. He'd already lost the battle with his body language. I noticed that as well. When little Rubio took a couple too many adderall pills last debate, Trump was like a brick wall. It was like Trump couldn't even hear him. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 03 2016 00:04 Jibba wrote: They denied them for the Huffington Post and Des Moines Register. Trump or the White house? | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28910 Posts
On March 02 2016 23:59 Jibba wrote: They gave press credentials to the host of a white supremacist radio program. So there is that. http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/jamesedwards/political-cesspool-host-james-edwards-reports-inside-donald-trumps-press-pen/ I'm not really equivocating the two. I am deeply sympathetic to the cause of college students who realize that words and rhetoric matter and who go a little too far in their efforts to change words and rhetoric of others (probably due to having a slightly naive expectation of how people will respond to this demand), and I'm not sympathetic to the cause of white supremacists at all. I also think Trump is just strategically catering to both sides, in the sense that he's saying just about enough to not distance himself from either racist voters or non-racist voters who find the non-racist parts of his campaign deeply resonating with their own political beliefs or world view. All I'm saying is, if we're going to judge someone from the other side of the political spectrum based on opinions held by a minority of his voters, we have to accept and understand that people from the other side of the political spectrum will hold us accountable in the same way. (even if the numbers aren't comparable, I'm not making an argument for or against that specifically. ) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24388 Posts
On March 02 2016 23:09 kwizach wrote: Come on, let's not kid ourselves here. Massachusetts clearly hurt for Sanders, since he's overall way below his targets to reach the nomination. See 538 and how he should have performed tonight, taking into account the states where he's favored down the road. It might not be obvious when you look at the states since 4-7 might seem like an OK defeat for Sanders, but overall Clinton has pretty much mounted a delegate lead he has little hope of erasing. See this re-cap on 538. Let not pretend the 2 delegate difference between winning MA and losing by less than 2% is a big deal. As for 538, this hasn't really been their election and Harry has a vested interest in Hillary winning, as that's what he's been saying pretty much the whole time (at least as far back as 2013 really). What leaps out to me is how he marginalizes MN and neglects to mention Sanders did win by a bigger margin than NH. He also doesn't mention that she's lost lots of white voters she had vs Obama. Which doesn't seem to be getting better, but worse. He also doesn't mention money or ground game at all which both favor Sanders as his rallies in later states generated large volunteer lists and sparked self-sufficient organizations in states Hillary hasn't even looked at (presuming she would have the nomination by mid March at the latest). Hillary is still the favorite, but folks trying to make Sanders supporters give up seem not to understand what's driving us. It feels eerily similar to Trump except Bernie didn't start with near 100% name recognition, non-stop coverage (people still don't get why this helped Trump) and the dissatisfaction level within the party with "the establishment". Bernie shouldn't have even been able to get this far by any estimate before December, that he has and wasn't a "Ron Paul" is precisely because of the parts of his campaign that folks like Harry don't understand because there isn't a comparable situation with data he can use to predict it and for Hillary supporters because they are relying on people like Harry. He's making an unnecessarily inflated case for Hillary imo. I could speculate on why, but I don't think it matters. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Trump campaign. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Not shocked. The man is going to cherry pick what press has access. It’s a very business-like plan which runs counter to how democracy works. I would expect him to do the same in the oval office, denying press access to news agencies that don’t give him favorable coverage. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28910 Posts
On March 03 2016 00:08 Mohdoo wrote: I noticed that as well. When little Rubio took a couple too many adderall pills last debate, Trump was like a brick wall. It was like Trump couldn't even hear him. The moments where Trump was being viciously attacked last debate was to me evidence of how fucked society gets when a political debate has rating numbers as part of its success metric. Both Cruz and Rubio were delivering real zingers, but nobody could hear them, because Trump was just speaking on top of them. If they actually wanted to debate issues rather than have verbal fisticuffs, they'd respond to this tactic by always muting the microphone of the non-speaker, but yeah.. I watched all 10 republican debates and if they consisted of Rubio, Bush and Kasich discussing issues, I don't think I could've done more than 1-2.  | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24388 Posts
Some of the folks seen pushing the young woman in the video I posted earlier are part of a white supremacy group who were allegedly trying to recruit at the rally. Cant imagine why they would think anyone there would be receptive to their group... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On March 03 2016 00:14 Plansix wrote: Not shocked. The man is going to cherry pick what press has access. It’s a very business-like plan which runs counter to how democracy works. I would expect him to do the same in the oval office, denying press access to news agencies that don’t give him favorable coverage. Sure, I just mean at some point you can't claim you're disavowing them when you're giving them press passes and interviews (as his son did, not him.) Their response to this one is going to be "we didn't know who they were" and his supporters will believe it. But then it'll happen again, and less will believe it then. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On March 03 2016 00:10 GreenHorizons wrote: Let not pretend the 2 delegate difference between winning MA and losing by less than 2% is a big deal. As for 538, this hasn't really been their election and Harry has a vested interest in Hillary winning, as that's what he's been saying pretty much the whole time (at least as far back as 2013 really). What leaps out to me is how he marginalizes MN and neglects to mention Sanders did win by a bigger margin than NH. He also doesn't mention that she's lost lots of white voters she had vs Obama. Which doesn't seem to be getting better, but worse. He also doesn't mention money or ground game at all which both favor Sanders as his rallies in later states generated large volunteer lists and sparked self-sufficient organizations in states Hillary hasn't even looked at (presuming she would have the nomination by mid March at the latest). Hillary is still the favorite, but folks trying to make Sanders supporters give up seem not to understand what's driving us. It feels eerily similar to Trump except Bernie didn't start with near 100% name recognition, non-stop coverage (people still don't get why this helped Trump) and the dissatisfaction level within the party with "the establishment". Bernie shouldn't have even been able to get this far by any estimate before December, that he has and wasn't a "Ron Paul" is precisely because of the parts of his campaign that folks like Harry don't understand because there isn't a comparable situation with data he can use to predict it and for Hillary supporters because they are relying on people like Harry. He's making an unnecessarily inflated case for Hillary imo. I could speculate on why, but I don't think it matters. The point is that to meet his targets, Sanders should have won Massachusetts by a sizable margin. Not only did he not win it by that kind of margin, but he actually lost the state entirely. That was clearly a blow to his campaign. With regards to Minnesota, Sanders actually fell short of his target again, by one delegate (while Clinton exceeded hers by one delegate). You can look at a detailed table displaying this here (you have to scroll down a bit). You can attack the messenger all you want, but the math is there. The point is not to make you give up, but to tell the truth about the state of the race (also, Sanders does not even remotely have the kind of appeal across demographics that Trump has). | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 03 2016 00:21 Jibba wrote: Sure, I just mean at some point you can't claim you're disavowing them when you're giving them press passes and interviews (as his son did, not him.) Their response to this one is going to be "we didn't know who they were" and his supporters will believe it. But then it'll happen again, and less will believe it then. No, you are 100% right. Trump is catering to white supremacist, while denying press passes to news agencies he believed will give him unfavorable coverage. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, has joined the Republican assault on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Sen. Elizabeth Warren helped create the bureau in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis in order to protect Americans from the malicious practices of the financial industry — particularly banks, toxic mortgage lenders, debt collectors and payday loan companies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has created pending new regulations in order to protect Americans from payday loan sharks, companies that make enormous profits off of predatory lending, exploiting the poor and uneducated by advertising quick and convenient loans while downplaying the concomitant skyrocketing interest. The bureau hopes to reign in the industry. Not if the DNC can stop it, however. For Wasserman Schultz has thrown her weight behind the Republican effort to sabotage the bureau’s proposed regulations of the out-of-control predatory lending. The DNC executive is co-sponsoring a new bill that would effectively “gut the CFPB’s forthcoming payday loan regulations,” the Huffington Post reports. Wasserman Schultz — a close ally of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who co-chaired her 2008 presidential campaign — is also trying to get fellow Democrats to support the anti-regulation legislation, a memo obtained by the Huffington Post shows. The bill, which is contradictingly titled the “Consumer Protection and Choice Act,” would push back the bureau’s payday lending regulations by two years. It would also let state laws on payday lending trump the federal regulations, falling back on so-called “states’ rights.” Echoing this longtime Republican talking point, Wasserman Schultz’s memo calls for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to “adjust their payday lending rules to take into account actions Florida has already taken.” The DNC chair describes Florida’s state law as a “model” for payday loan legislation. The director of the Campaign to Stop the Debt Trap at Americans for Financial Reform says otherwise, calling Florida’s law “a sham” and pointing out that “it was backed by the industry.” Leading consumer protection, civil rights and social justice groups overwhelmingly oppose the legislation. In December, 265 groups — including the Consumer Federation of America, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza — sent Congress a letter “strongly urging” lawmakers to vote against the bill. “This harmful bill would limit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) ability to protect all consumers against high — cost payday, car title, and installment loans,” the letter warns. The legislation would also “allow abusive small-dollar lenders to go on doing business as usual if states enact laws similar to a Florida law, putting in place so-called ‘industry best practices,'” the groups wrote. “Instead of protecting consumers, H.R. 4018 and the industry – backed Florida law would do more harm to consumers.” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz joins hands with GOP in assault on Elizabeth Warren’s consumer protection agency | ||
| ||
