|
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. |
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/03/donald-trump-reveals-details-of-his-health-care-plan.html
Trumps solution to fix the healthcare system, not Obama care.
Let me tell you right now, the real issue in the US has never been people not being able to get insurance, the real problem has always been that healthcare in the US is just very expensive because you have private companies offering a product in monopolies that is highly insensitive to price.
Obamacare only makes the situation worse, because when people are insured, they care less about the price, because hell, they are insured, and as such, pharmaceuticals can charge even more money, The real solution is for the health care industry to generate their product more efficiently, and as a result health coverage will be a lot easier to obtain.
Trump has the desires of America in his mind, please don't let your opinion be changed because multiple parties are currently throwing millions of dollars to overthrow him because they would be losing their power in the government. Stand up for what you believe.
This IS democracy, the media is trying to demonize 30%+ of the US population because they don't share the present politically correct views of contemporary society.
|
On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
A Bloomberg run would just siphon a little of the popular vote everywhere. It'd be like Perot in 96. He wouldn't be able to win states, which is what you need to do to bring the leader's electoral vote down - particularly blue states, in such a hypothetical. Where could Bloomberg win besides NY?
I'm pretty sure that given Bloomberg's specific positions, he'd be unlikely to win even NY. His economic policies are unpopular amongst the urban/liberal demographics, and his social positions (pro gun control, pro choice, supports same-sex marriage, supports stem cell research, etc.) are a problem with the rural/conservative demographics, especially his position on gun control. I've lived in three separate rural areas of NY - on Long Island (which wasn't really rural, but that was about as rural as Long Island gets), near Saratoga (about 50 miles north of Albany), and in the Hudson Valley region - and a common theme was signs on basically every lawn calling for the repeal of the SAFE Act. The only demographic that I see him doing really well with is people who live and work in Manhattan, particularly people in the financial sector. Like with most states, I'd see him siphoning a little bit of the popular vote, but I don't think he'd flip NY red, much less win the state.
|
On March 04 2016 08:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Source Rubio should back out. He doesn't have a prayer. But here's why he won't: the Republican leadership arguably hates Ted Cruz more than they hate Trump. I'm not sure that they'd ever tolerate the idea of uniting behind Cruz in one last ditch effort to take down Trump.
It might have been a bit of momentary despair, but there was that clip of Graham saying he'd take Cruz to stop Trump. I'm not sure he actually believes that, or would stick to it. I think the GOP's problem with Trump is not his positions (although plenty of them are, uh, not normal for Republicans) but the fact that they think he would be trounced in the general.
I understand you not as concerned about Trump's general election chances, but I think I would agree with most who say he is more likely than not to lose to Hillary.
Edit: and they hate Trump because he calls them names. But policy wise, he's hardly the hardline conservative the party so deeply hates.
|
On March 04 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Source Rubio should back out. He doesn't have a prayer. But here's why he won't: the Republican leadership arguably hates Ted Cruz more than they hate Trump. I'm not sure that they'd ever tolerate the idea of uniting behind Cruz in one last ditch effort to take down Trump. It might have been a bit of momentary despair, but there was that clip of Graham saying he'd take Cruz to stop Trump. I'm not sure he actually believes that, or would stick to it. I think the GOP's problem with Trump is not his positions (although plenty of them are, uh, not normal for Republicans) but the fact that they think he would be trounced in the general. I understand you not as concerned about Trump's general election chances, but I think I would agree with most who say he is more likely than not to lose to Hillary. Edit: and they hate Trump because he calls them names. But policy wise, he's hardly the hardline conservative the party so deeply hates.
But what's the solution, then? If Rubio is the nominee, what happens when Trump runs as a third party? Isn't gathering around Trump the best option? At least the vote isn't split that way. I think Trump is confident in his chances as a third party.
|
On March 04 2016 08:31 FiWiFaKi wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/03/donald-trump-reveals-details-of-his-health-care-plan.htmlTrumps solution to fix the healthcare system, not Obama care. Let me tell you right now, the real issue in the US has never been people not being able to get insurance, the real problem has always been that healthcare in the US is just very expensive because you have private companies offering a product in monopolies that is highly insensitive to price.Obamacare only makes the situation worse, because when people are insured, they care less about the price, because hell, they are insured, and as such, pharmaceuticals can charge even more money, The real solution is for the health care industry to generate their product more efficiently, and as a result health coverage will be a lot easier to obtain.Trump has the desires of America in his mind, please don't let your opinion be changed because multiple parties are currently throwing millions of dollars to overthrow him because they would be losing their power in the government. Stand up for what you believe.
What I bolded in your post is basically the shortest possible argument for a single-payer system, where the government negotiates prices on behalf of enough people (more or less the entire nation) that it has the bargaining power to negotiate with regional monopolies from a position of strength. Alternatively, the government takes over the role of insurance companies, and does their work more or less at cost, eliminating the middle men. Either way, the health industry is no longer supporting the inefficiency of monopolistic health insurance companies preying on people with no alternatives.
|
On March 04 2016 08:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On March 04 2016 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Source Rubio should back out. He doesn't have a prayer. But here's why he won't: the Republican leadership arguably hates Ted Cruz more than they hate Trump. I'm not sure that they'd ever tolerate the idea of uniting behind Cruz in one last ditch effort to take down Trump. It might have been a bit of momentary despair, but there was that clip of Graham saying he'd take Cruz to stop Trump. I'm not sure he actually believes that, or would stick to it. I think the GOP's problem with Trump is not his positions (although plenty of them are, uh, not normal for Republicans) but the fact that they think he would be trounced in the general. I understand you not as concerned about Trump's general election chances, but I think I would agree with most who say he is more likely than not to lose to Hillary. Edit: and they hate Trump because he calls them names. But policy wise, he's hardly the hardline conservative the party so deeply hates. But what's the solution, then? If Rubio is the nominee, what happens when Trump runs as a third party? Isn't gathering around Trump the best option? At least the vote isn't split that way. I think Trump is confident in his chances as a third party.
Trump probably believes he could drop out of the Repuclican race right now run as a Democrat and take the Democratic nomination if he wanted it so I would not question how confident Trump is that he could win as a 3rd party candidate.
|
On March 04 2016 08:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:11 xDaunt wrote:And this is what is echoing in the minds of all conservatives right now: why the fuck does the Republican establishment fight its base harder than it fights the Democrats? Because there is no future for the Republican Party on a national level if it accepted its new Tea Party base. Yes it is their own fault they are in this position but their options are to fight their own base in an attempt to be nationally relevant, submit and support Cruz/Trump and lose any shot at a national victory or thirdly split the party and never win a national victory again. Fighting their own base is their last resort.
You have it backwards. The only future for the Republican Party is if it reconciles with its base. It has no prayer of winning anything otherwise. After the 2012 election, I said that the way forward was for the Republican Party to adopt a more libertarian bent. Trump is showing a different way forward. Regardless, the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. The Republican Party needs to revamp its platform.
|
On March 04 2016 08:40 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On March 04 2016 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Source Rubio should back out. He doesn't have a prayer. But here's why he won't: the Republican leadership arguably hates Ted Cruz more than they hate Trump. I'm not sure that they'd ever tolerate the idea of uniting behind Cruz in one last ditch effort to take down Trump. It might have been a bit of momentary despair, but there was that clip of Graham saying he'd take Cruz to stop Trump. I'm not sure he actually believes that, or would stick to it. I think the GOP's problem with Trump is not his positions (although plenty of them are, uh, not normal for Republicans) but the fact that they think he would be trounced in the general. I understand you not as concerned about Trump's general election chances, but I think I would agree with most who say he is more likely than not to lose to Hillary. Edit: and they hate Trump because he calls them names. But policy wise, he's hardly the hardline conservative the party so deeply hates. But what's the solution, then? If Rubio is the nominee, what happens when Trump runs as a third party? Isn't gathering around Trump the best option? At least the vote isn't split that way. I think Trump is confident in his chances as a third party.
Trump isn't a fool, he knows he'd get blown out as a third party run. But he doesn't care about the party, really, so he'd probably do it just to stick it in their face.
I don't know what the solution is. Trump is behind both McCain and Romney in delegates at this stage, but obvious with 4 people still in the race he wins. And no one is going to drop out in time to stop him. At this point I think Trump probobly only loses if he loses Florida and (or?) Ohio, or Kasich and Rubio drop after they lose their home states. But by then it's too late.
This isn't a position I'd want to be in, as a party elite.
|
On March 04 2016 08:44 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:31 FiWiFaKi wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/03/donald-trump-reveals-details-of-his-health-care-plan.htmlTrumps solution to fix the healthcare system, not Obama care. Let me tell you right now, the real issue in the US has never been people not being able to get insurance, the real problem has always been that healthcare in the US is just very expensive because you have private companies offering a product in monopolies that is highly insensitive to price.Obamacare only makes the situation worse, because when people are insured, they care less about the price, because hell, they are insured, and as such, pharmaceuticals can charge even more money, The real solution is for the health care industry to generate their product more efficiently, and as a result health coverage will be a lot easier to obtain.Trump has the desires of America in his mind, please don't let your opinion be changed because multiple parties are currently throwing millions of dollars to overthrow him because they would be losing their power in the government. Stand up for what you believe. What I bolded in your post is basically the shortest possible argument for a single-payer system, where the government negotiates prices on behalf of enough people (more or less the entire nation) that it has the bargaining power to negotiate with regional monopolies from a position of strength. Alternatively, the government takes over the role of insurance companies, and does their work more or less at cost, eliminating the middle men. Either way, the health industry is no longer supporting the inefficiency of monopolistic health insurance companies preying on people with no alternatives.
One of the many reasons why I like Bernie.
|
On March 04 2016 08:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:40 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On March 04 2016 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Source Rubio should back out. He doesn't have a prayer. But here's why he won't: the Republican leadership arguably hates Ted Cruz more than they hate Trump. I'm not sure that they'd ever tolerate the idea of uniting behind Cruz in one last ditch effort to take down Trump. It might have been a bit of momentary despair, but there was that clip of Graham saying he'd take Cruz to stop Trump. I'm not sure he actually believes that, or would stick to it. I think the GOP's problem with Trump is not his positions (although plenty of them are, uh, not normal for Republicans) but the fact that they think he would be trounced in the general. I understand you not as concerned about Trump's general election chances, but I think I would agree with most who say he is more likely than not to lose to Hillary. Edit: and they hate Trump because he calls them names. But policy wise, he's hardly the hardline conservative the party so deeply hates. But what's the solution, then? If Rubio is the nominee, what happens when Trump runs as a third party? Isn't gathering around Trump the best option? At least the vote isn't split that way. I think Trump is confident in his chances as a third party. Trump isn't a fool, he knows he'd get blown out as a third party run. But he doesn't care about the party, really, so he'd probably do it just to stick it in their face. I don't know what the solution is. Trump is behind both McCain and Romney in delegates at this stage, but obvious with 4 people still in the race he wins. And no one is going to drop out in time to stop him. At this point I think Trump probobly only loses if he loses Florida and Ohio, or Kasich and Rubio drop after they lose their home states. But by then it's too late. This isn't a position I'd want to be in, as a party elite.
I think if he ran as a third party, he'd call for Rubio to drop out after getting 3rd place in an early state.
|
I am flabbergasted that the establishment thought this would do anything other than help Trump. Unless Romney did it on his own. It's mindbogglingly stupid.
Edit: Auto correct says that's a real word. Sounds weird.
|
Trump's healthcare plan is shit and Bernie's is unworkable. Trumpcare is like going back to the pre-Obamacare days except with a few newer cost savings and payments mechanisms and magic freemarket effects, Bernie's is almost impossible to implement given the ways the backdrop to the US healthcare industry differs from others unless we jack costs way, way up.
|
On March 04 2016 08:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:26 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2016 08:11 xDaunt wrote:And this is what is echoing in the minds of all conservatives right now: why the fuck does the Republican establishment fight its base harder than it fights the Democrats? Because there is no future for the Republican Party on a national level if it accepted its new Tea Party base. Yes it is their own fault they are in this position but their options are to fight their own base in an attempt to be nationally relevant, submit and support Cruz/Trump and lose any shot at a national victory or thirdly split the party and never win a national victory again. Fighting their own base is their last resort. You have it backwards. The only future for the Republican Party is if it reconciles with its base. It has no prayer of winning anything otherwise. After the 2012 election, I said that the way forward was for the Republican Party to adopt a more libertarian bent. Trump is showing a different way forward. Regardless, the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. The Republican Party needs to revamp its platform.
How are you always so wrong?
Libertarians are doing worse than socialists right now fam.
|
On March 04 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Source Rubio should back out. He doesn't have a prayer. But here's why he won't: the Republican leadership arguably hates Ted Cruz more than they hate Trump. I'm not sure that they'd ever tolerate the idea of uniting behind Cruz in one last ditch effort to take down Trump. It might have been a bit of momentary despair, but there was that clip of Graham saying he'd take Cruz to stop Trump. I'm not sure he actually believes that, or would stick to it. I think the GOP's problem with Trump is not his positions (although plenty of them are, uh, not normal for Republicans) but the fact that they think he would be trounced in the general. I understand you not as concerned about Trump's general election chances, but I think I would agree with most who say he is more likely than not to lose to Hillary. Edit: and they hate Trump because he calls them names. But policy wise, he's hardly the hardline conservative the party so deeply hates.
I think the GOP's fear of Trump is not a national result. It is the fact that he is not beholden to them and would not listen to them. Same problem they have with Cruz.
On March 04 2016 08:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:26 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2016 08:11 xDaunt wrote:And this is what is echoing in the minds of all conservatives right now: why the fuck does the Republican establishment fight its base harder than it fights the Democrats? Because there is no future for the Republican Party on a national level if it accepted its new Tea Party base. Yes it is their own fault they are in this position but their options are to fight their own base in an attempt to be nationally relevant, submit and support Cruz/Trump and lose any shot at a national victory or thirdly split the party and never win a national victory again. Fighting their own base is their last resort. You have it backwards. The only future for the Republican Party is if it reconciles with its base. It has no prayer of winning anything otherwise. After the 2012 election, I said that the way forward was for the Republican Party to adopt a more libertarian bent. Trump is showing a different way forward. Regardless, the status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. The Republican Party needs to revamp its platform.
I still don't believe Trump can carry a national victory. Only if the Democrats hand it to him by staying home because they felt the Bern.
The Tea Party simply does not have enough support outside their limited voting districts. It can put people into congress but it cannot win a national election. Embracing them will only lead them further away from the center and any hope of swaying independents.
If you believe they do hold enough influence to win a national then yes I can see why rallying behind Trump would work.
I guess we will know which side is right in a couple of months.
|
Given the demographic development in the US wouldn't it make a lot more sense, at least long term, to try to appeal to Hispanic and black voters? Hardcore conservatives seem to poll absolutely terrible among these groups compared to democrats. So what is going farther to the right supposed to accomplish?
|
On March 04 2016 08:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too. We'd get 1992 redux in all likelihood. Dissatisfaction has been something common in the GOP process so far - what about people who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 (Obama's popular vote went down from about 70 to 65 million in those 4 years) - isn't there a similar sentiment among those voters? We don't even know who the options are yet, but have you seen any polling on Democratic voters swinging? Is primary turnout not an indicator of this? I don't see a scenario where Hillary gets less than 45% of the vote. The Democrat base is no where near as fractured as the Republican base. As just a reminder, Bill Clinton carried 370 electoral votes with just 43% of the popular vote. Well, it's how the popular's distributed, what if they can all win states? there's just no way this threatens hillary. hillary could win texas lol
The other Clinton didn't win Texas in 92. Why couldn't Trump on the ballot take California away from Clinton if she's the nominee? They elected Arnold.
On March 04 2016 08:32 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
A Bloomberg run would just siphon a little of the popular vote everywhere. It'd be like Perot in 96. He wouldn't be able to win states, which is what you need to do to bring the leader's electoral vote down - particularly blue states, in such a hypothetical. Where could Bloomberg win besides NY? I'm pretty sure that given Bloomberg's specific positions, he'd be unlikely to win even NY. His economic policies are unpopular amongst the urban/liberal demographics, and his social positions (pro gun control, pro choice, supports same-sex marriage, supports stem cell research, etc.) are a problem with the rural/conservative demographics, especially his position on gun control. I've lived in three separate rural areas of NY - on Long Island (which wasn't really rural, but that was about as rural as Long Island gets), near Saratoga (about 50 miles north of Albany), and in the Hudson Valley region - and a common theme was signs on basically every lawn calling for the repeal of the SAFE Act. The only demographic that I see him doing really well with is people who live and work in Manhattan, particularly people in the financial sector. Like with most states, I'd see him siphoning a little bit of the popular vote, but I don't think he'd flip NY red, much less win the state.
Thanks for this information. I just assumed NY would be the only state Bloomberg would have a chance of winning because of home base advantage, but I guess not even there.
|
On March 04 2016 08:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:45 Introvert wrote:On March 04 2016 08:40 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On March 04 2016 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Source Rubio should back out. He doesn't have a prayer. But here's why he won't: the Republican leadership arguably hates Ted Cruz more than they hate Trump. I'm not sure that they'd ever tolerate the idea of uniting behind Cruz in one last ditch effort to take down Trump. It might have been a bit of momentary despair, but there was that clip of Graham saying he'd take Cruz to stop Trump. I'm not sure he actually believes that, or would stick to it. I think the GOP's problem with Trump is not his positions (although plenty of them are, uh, not normal for Republicans) but the fact that they think he would be trounced in the general. I understand you not as concerned about Trump's general election chances, but I think I would agree with most who say he is more likely than not to lose to Hillary. Edit: and they hate Trump because he calls them names. But policy wise, he's hardly the hardline conservative the party so deeply hates. But what's the solution, then? If Rubio is the nominee, what happens when Trump runs as a third party? Isn't gathering around Trump the best option? At least the vote isn't split that way. I think Trump is confident in his chances as a third party. Trump isn't a fool, he knows he'd get blown out as a third party run. But he doesn't care about the party, really, so he'd probably do it just to stick it in their face. I don't know what the solution is. Trump is behind both McCain and Romney in delegates at this stage, but obvious with 4 people still in the race he wins. And no one is going to drop out in time to stop him. At this point I think Trump probobly only loses if he loses Florida and Ohio, or Kasich and Rubio drop after they lose their home states. But by then it's too late. This isn't a position I'd want to be in, as a party elite. I think if he ran as a third party, he'd call for Rubio to drop out after getting 3rd place in an early state.
What do you mean? Trump isn't going independent unless he gets denied the nomination from the GOP. And that won't happen until the convention.
|
United States43219 Posts
On March 04 2016 08:53 Nyxisto wrote:
Given the demographic development in the US wouldn't it make a lot more sense, at least long term, to try to appeal to Hispanic and black voters? Hardcore conservatives seem to poll absolutely terrible among these groups compared to democrats. So what is going farther to the right supposed to accomplish?
Only if they think they can actually win them over. If giving concessions to other groups loses them hardcore white supporters and doesn't win them any additional votes it's not going to help.
|
On March 04 2016 08:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:24 oneofthem wrote:On March 04 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 07:54 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:48 oBlade wrote:On March 04 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 07:27 oBlade wrote:
If Sanders were the blue nominee, it would be much more up in the air, but even Hillary would also hemorrhage voters if there were 2 alternatives to her, or 3 if you include abstaining... no? Especially if a legal mess develops around her. Depends who the GOP came up with, too. We'd get 1992 redux in all likelihood. Dissatisfaction has been something common in the GOP process so far - what about people who voted for Obama in 2008/2012 (Obama's popular vote went down from about 70 to 65 million in those 4 years) - isn't there a similar sentiment among those voters? We don't even know who the options are yet, but have you seen any polling on Democratic voters swinging? Is primary turnout not an indicator of this? I don't see a scenario where Hillary gets less than 45% of the vote. The Democrat base is no where near as fractured as the Republican base. As just a reminder, Bill Clinton carried 370 electoral votes with just 43% of the popular vote. Well, it's how the popular's distributed, what if they can all win states? there's just no way this threatens hillary. hillary could win texas lol The other Clinton didn't win Texas in 92. Why couldn't Trump on the ballot take California away from Clinton if she's the nominee? They elected Arnold.
arnold was a weird case. it was a recall election and stuff.
on an unrelated note if Trump gets the nomination does he change his platform at all?
|
On March 04 2016 08:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:48 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 08:45 Introvert wrote:On March 04 2016 08:40 Mohdoo wrote:On March 04 2016 08:38 Introvert wrote:On March 04 2016 08:09 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 08:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Marco Rubio’s path to the Republican nomination short of a contested convention has narrowed to nearly nothing as his campaign and allies reboot their strategy to prepare for months of guerrilla warfare to deny Donald Trump a clean, pre-convention victory.
The math for Rubio is daunting. After getting thoroughly routed on Super Tuesday, Rubio is in so deep a delegate hole that he would now need to win roughly two-thirds of all the remaining delegates to guarantee his nomination ahead of Cleveland, according to a POLITICO analysis.
That is an enormously difficult, if not impossible, climb for a candidate who has so far won only a single state, Minnesota, and especially one who is not predicting victory in any of the next dozen states and territories that cast ballots, until his home state of Florida votes on March 15.
“It's fair to say that Rubio’s path to 1,237 is shot,” Dave Wasserman, an analyst with the Cook Political Report who closely tracks the delegate race, said of the threshold to secure the nomination.
“There’s virtually no chance for Marco Rubio to get to a majority prior to the convention,” said John Yob, who served as a top delegate strategist for Rick Santorum in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Source Rubio should back out. He doesn't have a prayer. But here's why he won't: the Republican leadership arguably hates Ted Cruz more than they hate Trump. I'm not sure that they'd ever tolerate the idea of uniting behind Cruz in one last ditch effort to take down Trump. It might have been a bit of momentary despair, but there was that clip of Graham saying he'd take Cruz to stop Trump. I'm not sure he actually believes that, or would stick to it. I think the GOP's problem with Trump is not his positions (although plenty of them are, uh, not normal for Republicans) but the fact that they think he would be trounced in the general. I understand you not as concerned about Trump's general election chances, but I think I would agree with most who say he is more likely than not to lose to Hillary. Edit: and they hate Trump because he calls them names. But policy wise, he's hardly the hardline conservative the party so deeply hates. But what's the solution, then? If Rubio is the nominee, what happens when Trump runs as a third party? Isn't gathering around Trump the best option? At least the vote isn't split that way. I think Trump is confident in his chances as a third party. Trump isn't a fool, he knows he'd get blown out as a third party run. But he doesn't care about the party, really, so he'd probably do it just to stick it in their face. I don't know what the solution is. Trump is behind both McCain and Romney in delegates at this stage, but obvious with 4 people still in the race he wins. And no one is going to drop out in time to stop him. At this point I think Trump probobly only loses if he loses Florida and Ohio, or Kasich and Rubio drop after they lose their home states. But by then it's too late. This isn't a position I'd want to be in, as a party elite. I think if he ran as a third party, he'd call for Rubio to drop out after getting 3rd place in an early state. What do you mean? Trump isn't going independent unless he gets denied the nomination from the GOP. And that won't happen until the convention.
Sorry I was unclear. I predict that if Trump loses to Rubio, Trump will run as a 3rd party. When the general becomes a 3-man race, Clinton will be winning, followed by trump, closely followed by Rubio. Trump will call for Rubio to drop out and for all conservatives to rally around him. And then boom, trump absorbs the entire Republican party. The great party is born.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
