|
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. |
On March 04 2016 08:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:53 Introvert wrote: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 book, trump absorbs the entire Republican party. The great party is born.
For all the good it would do (zero), I sincerely doubt Trump would beat Rubio in the general. Either electoral college wise, or in terms of the popular vote. And conservatives like Rubio too. Trump will lose, go back to his business, and we'll all remember years later that wacky 2016 election.
On March 04 2016 08:53 Gorsameth 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. 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.
That's true, but it's also true that Trump is malleable. I think they know they could work with him. Then again, given some of their amazing displays of stupidity recently, perhaps not.
|
On March 04 2016 08:55 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 08:53 oBlade wrote: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?
Well, it was a recall election, but he was also popular for his celebrity and so on. Trump's not "Hollywood" but it's close. As time goes on, for all candidates, their platforms become less vague/ambiguous and we get access to details. In that sense some stuff people say along the primary trail, whether it's hot air and rhetoric, or just unclear, those parts of their platform change. But in terms of adapting his positions to follow the party line: no, isn't it the opposite; if he gets the nomination, the party follows him.
|
This is why this country needs an Stimulus for pure infrastructure or just an overall Infrastructure Bank. Wish this country would enter the modern age of governance.
Flint, Mich., isn't the only American city with a lead problem. Though the health crisis in Flint has highlighted the use of lead in water pipes, author David Rosner tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross that lead, which is a neurotoxin, can be found throughout the U.S. on walls, in soil and in the air.
"The problem with lead is that it's now really everywhere, and we've created a terribly toxic environment in all sorts of ways," he says.
Lead is particularly dangerous to young children. In their book, Lead Wars, Rosner and co-author Gerald Markowitz describe the ways in which even small exposures can interfere with a child's brain development and cause lasting learning challenges.
"It causes IQ loss. It causes behavioral problems. It causes attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, dyslexia," Markowitz says.
Rosner adds that even a small amount of lead can have a lasting effect on a child's health. "As early as the 1910s and 1920s, [doctors] were documenting children who had absorbed lead on their fingers as dust and had put their hands in their mouth and actually began going into convulsions," he says. "It's not like you need a lot of it."
Source
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
when these decisions are in the hands of local govt and contractor buddies you wont see much building. as much americans like their local direct representation the local is where most of the fuck up happens
|
Hope folks got to the Republican debate early, might have a tough time getting in now.
|
as a californian, i don't see trump winning california
governator != trump
could be wrong tho
edit: i meant in the general, not primary
|
On March 04 2016 09:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:This is why this country needs an Stimulus for pure infrastructure or just an overall Infrastructure Bank. Wish this country would enter the modern age of governance. Show nested quote +Flint, Mich., isn't the only American city with a lead problem. Though the health crisis in Flint has highlighted the use of lead in water pipes, author David Rosner tells Fresh Air's Terry Gross that lead, which is a neurotoxin, can be found throughout the U.S. on walls, in soil and in the air.
"The problem with lead is that it's now really everywhere, and we've created a terribly toxic environment in all sorts of ways," he says.
Lead is particularly dangerous to young children. In their book, Lead Wars, Rosner and co-author Gerald Markowitz describe the ways in which even small exposures can interfere with a child's brain development and cause lasting learning challenges.
"It causes IQ loss. It causes behavioral problems. It causes attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, dyslexia," Markowitz says.
Rosner adds that even a small amount of lead can have a lasting effect on a child's health. "As early as the 1910s and 1920s, [doctors] were documenting children who had absorbed lead on their fingers as dust and had put their hands in their mouth and actually began going into convulsions," he says. "It's not like you need a lot of it." Source
To put it into perspective, the Netherlands got rid of the last lead water pipes we had over 10 years ago. Now ofcourse we're a much smaller country but its not like this danger is new.
|
Cayman Islands24199 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?
thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars
btw lol just lol the idea that with trump on the ballot rubio would win california. hillary by 40 points
|
On March 04 2016 09:55 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +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? thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars
Cruz is absolutely crazy as well though. What is he going to do to balance his 10% flat tax, abolish the army? I don't understand what the Republican party's strategy at all was from the beginning. There's not a single moderate in the race
|
On March 04 2016 10:01 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 09:55 oneofthem wrote: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? thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars Cruz is absolutely crazy as well though. What is he going to do to balance his 10% flat tax, abolish the army? I don't understand what the Republican party's strategy at all was from the beginning. There's not a single moderate in the race
Trump is the most moderate person there.
|
On March 04 2016 10:01 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 09:55 oneofthem wrote: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? thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars Cruz is absolutely crazy as well though. What is he going to do to balance his 10% flat tax, abolish the army? I don't understand what the Republican party's strategy at all was from the beginning. There's not a single moderate in the race
Take off the European glasses if you're going to be commenting on US politics.
|
http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/romneys-niece-given-ticket-access-clout-for-fox-debate/
McDaniel, the Michigan Republican state chair, was part of an elite group tasked with dispensing tickets to Fox News’ presidential debate in Detroit, Michigan. The Republican National Committee allocated 400 tickets to the state party, but only 50 of them will go to the public.
Perhaps tonight we'll see more people relentlessly booing Trump while calling him a bully.
|
On March 04 2016 10:01 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 09:55 oneofthem wrote: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? thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars Cruz is absolutely crazy as well though. What is he going to do to balance his 10% flat tax, abolish the army? I don't understand what the Republican party's strategy at all was from the beginning. There's not a single moderate in the race
I think Kasich is more moderate, although I might be confusing political views with the fact that he's just more mild-mannered.
|
On March 04 2016 09:42 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
as a californian, i don't see trump winning california
governator != trump
could be wrong tho
edit: i meant in the general, not primary We'd be talking a chain of events about as likely as oneofthem's bernie hypothetical. Say, Obama's EPA shuts down several power plants and there's blackouts all over California and extremely high energy bills elsewhere. Hillary would also have to defend that decision. Then Trump does a blustery press conference that hits all the points hard.
Call it neo-Davis.
On March 04 2016 10:04 oBlade wrote:http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/romneys-niece-given-ticket-access-clout-for-fox-debate/Show nested quote +McDaniel, the Michigan Republican state chair, was part of an elite group tasked with dispensing tickets to Fox News’ presidential debate in Detroit, Michigan. The Republican National Committee allocated 400 tickets to the state party, but only 50 of them will go to the public. Perhaps tonight we'll see more people relentlessly booing Trump while calling him a bully.
All but guaranteed. Big cheers whenever Rubio & Kasich finish a concluding line no matter what context.
|
On March 04 2016 10:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 10:01 Nyxisto wrote:On March 04 2016 09:55 oneofthem wrote: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? thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars Cruz is absolutely crazy as well though. What is he going to do to balance his 10% flat tax, abolish the army? I don't understand what the Republican party's strategy at all was from the beginning. There's not a single moderate in the race Take off the European glasses if you're going to be commenting on US politics.
This isn't the European glasses this are the "they are promising stuff that they can not possible keep" glasses, because you literally can not sustain a government when you stop collecting taxes. I should have specified. No moderate got any significant amount of votes. Christie would probably fall into that camp.
|
On March 04 2016 10:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 10:01 Nyxisto wrote:On March 04 2016 09:55 oneofthem wrote: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? thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars Cruz is absolutely crazy as well though. What is he going to do to balance his 10% flat tax, abolish the army? I don't understand what the Republican party's strategy at all was from the beginning. There's not a single moderate in the race Take off the European glasses if you're going to be commenting on US politics.
Wait, do you genuinely believe that a 10% flat tax is a good idea? Because knowing that it's not has nothing to do with being European and everything to do with living in the real world.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 04 2016 10:01 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 09:55 oneofthem wrote: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? thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars Cruz is absolutely crazy as well though. What is he going to do to balance his 10% flat tax, abolish the army? I don't understand what the Republican party's strategy at all was from the beginning. There's not a single moderate in the race
the party's marching orders are just crazy. it's either social conservative paleo morality or corporatist propaganda on crack
|
On March 04 2016 10:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 10:01 Nyxisto wrote:On March 04 2016 09:55 oneofthem wrote: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? thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars Cruz is absolutely crazy as well though. What is he going to do to balance his 10% flat tax, abolish the army? I don't understand what the Republican party's strategy at all was from the beginning. There's not a single moderate in the race I think Kasich is more moderate, although I might be confusing political views with the fact that he's just more mild-mannered.
My initial hunch was that in a split, a Clinton/Kasich/Trump general would be the GOP's best shot to stop anyone from getting 270 electoral - if that were their goal. But nobody really has any idea yet.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
uh how would that even split hillary's votes at all
|
On March 04 2016 10:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2016 10:03 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2016 10:01 Nyxisto wrote:On March 04 2016 09:55 oneofthem wrote: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? thats why rubio and cruz were boosted stars Cruz is absolutely crazy as well though. What is he going to do to balance his 10% flat tax, abolish the army? I don't understand what the Republican party's strategy at all was from the beginning. There's not a single moderate in the race Take off the European glasses if you're going to be commenting on US politics. Wait, do you genuinely believe that a 10% flat tax is a good idea? Because knowing that it's not has nothing to do with being European and everything to do with living in the real world.
Your reading comprehension is terrible. Try again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
