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 09 2016 11:36 strongwind wrote: Are there any black protestants from the Bible Belt on here? I'm seriously curious how Hillary can win by 50 to 60 point margins in the South. I so earnestly want to understand how so many people can be so on board any one candidate (that isn't an elected official from the state).
I ask because I want to dispel the bad notions that form in my brain whenever I think about the South. I seriously don't know anything about Southern Democrats and what's important to them. I truly want to believe that the reason they're voting for Hillary is not because Bill was "the cool black guy" and that they're only voting on nostalgia. I can understand her support because she's had a presence in the South for a long time, but those margins are too vast for me to think that that's the only reason. Dispel my monolithic notions please, oh someone from the South...
The general impression I've gotten from talking to people I know down there is that Clinton is basically political royalty down there, they had nearly every black elected official in their pocket from the network they've long established across the south and most black elected officials got there because they had the support of the establishment (now fully under Hillary's control).
So it's loyalty #1 (voters loyal to their particular black official) but there's a lot of factors and Bernie pretty much gave up on it when he realized how impossible it was to reach folks (logistically).
He needed to be there when he was doing his big rallies across the country but there was no internet base there and when he went, the small crowds did more damage elsewhere than he was gaining locally.
Like I mentioned earlier upwards of 20% of the calls made went to people who didn't even know the name Bernie Sanders. that was THIS WEEK. so there's that. I can't explain that without sounding rude.
On March 09 2016 11:34 Introvert wrote: Question is, will the party go to Cruz or Trump? A month ago I said it would be Trump, but it's possible they fear his prospects in November too much. Kasich still playing for VP. Rubio has to be out now. Even if he sticks around for Florida, he's done, win or no win.
It's Trump. A bunch of billionaires (the ones funding other candidates for example) offer him a ridiculously sweet deal to just be a figure head.
Cruz is a dead end for the establishment. Kasich could win if they went with the block Trump at all cost and negotiate with party loyal delegates that were elected by Trump people who don't understand the process route, but anything other than giving Trump the nomination or everyone actually rallying around Ted to give him a majority of delegates and the party falls apart.
I would have agreed a month ago, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Like was said about the more liberal states Cruz is toast they would need Kasich to be the guy and have Ted somehow lock down every delegate he's won and MAKE them support Kasich at a brokered convention, then throw Cruz on as VP (yeah that's as impossible as it sounds).
This must be the Trump attack ad that he said tonight helps him more than hurts him. I hadn't seen it before so I didn't know what they were talking about:
On March 09 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote: only thing sanders achieved is to show how stupid young people are. all these terrible policies actually get people excited
On March 09 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote: only thing sanders achieved is to show how stupid young people are. all these terrible policies actually get people excited
On March 09 2016 11:34 Introvert wrote: Question is, will the party go to Cruz or Trump? A month ago I said it would be Trump, but it's possible they fear his prospects in November too much. Kasich still playing for VP. Rubio has to be out now. Even if he sticks around for Florida, he's done, win or no win.
It's Trump. A bunch of billionaires (the ones funding other candidates for example) offer him a ridiculously sweet deal to just be a figure head.
Cruz is a dead end for the establishment. Kasich could win if they went with the block Trump at all cost and negotiate with party loyal delegates that were elected by Trump people who don't understand the process route, but anything other than giving Trump the nomination or everyone actually rallying around Ted to give him a majority of delegates and the party falls apart.
I would have agreed a month ago, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Like was said about the more liberal states Cruz is toast they would need Kasich to be the guy and have Ted somehow lock down every delegate he's won and MAKE them support Kasich at a brokered convention, then throw Cruz on as VP (yeah that's as impossible as it sounds).
My post didn't have anything to do with winning. The question is, what will they try?
It should be really worrying to Democrats that Trump won Michigan an now Sanders showed, win or lose, how wrong Polling was. They are both anti NAFTA/Free trade.
EDIT: Looks like Clinton camp read the tea leaves and is switching to a more populist argument on free trade.
On March 09 2016 12:02 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It should be really worrying to Democrats that Trump won Michigan an now Sanders showed, win or lose, how wrong Polling was. They are both anti NAFTA/Free trade.
EDIT: Looks like Clinton camp read the tea leaves and is switching to a more populist argument on free trade.
Wasnt Trump just talking about how much he loved Free Trade in his ramblings...