|
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. |
Maybe it's just me viewing it on my phone, but for a second or two the Donald looked like a raccoon caught rummaging in the garbage when the lights turn on. He looked ready to beat it usain bolt style until the secret service reassured him.
|
On March 13 2016 07:05 frazzle wrote:
Maybe it's just me viewing it on my phone, but for a second or two the Donald looked like a raccoon caught rummaging in the garbage when the lights turn on. He looked ready to beat it usain bolt style until the secret service reassured him.
let's be fair. That's a pretty normal reflex given the situation (as much as I hate the man)
|
On March 13 2016 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 06:59 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. That's a strong way to put it, but I definitely noticed early on that when Jeb Bush (ostensibly a shoo-in candidate) was having a poor start compared to the Trump spectacle, the MSM never guided him as a viable alternative. Just sort of held his hand as he lost. On March 13 2016 06:52 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. not so sure actually. Trump and Cruz are both awful for the R nomination. But then again I don't really see anyone else taking it anymore. Streetfights out in the open after Kasich gets appointed the nomination at the convention despite Trump and Cruz being way ahead of him anyone? Exactly, the claim is that liberals would prefer a Republican nominee who was awful. well, Trump is a nominee who is awful. He's the most hated man to run for president in a long time. I just happen to think that Cruz somehow even manages to edge out on him, not because of how much people don't like him but actually because of his policies. Republican base postponing their revolution for 4 years, getting some random bush/rubio/kasich first as a safe bet into a Trump next election would probably have been the nightmare for Democrats. I could have seen that working for both elections.
what do you mean? If their 'safe bet' loses to Hillary (not unlikely) then Trump would be fighting an incumbent which is very unfavorable.
|
On March 13 2016 07:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2016 06:59 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. That's a strong way to put it, but I definitely noticed early on that when Jeb Bush (ostensibly a shoo-in candidate) was having a poor start compared to the Trump spectacle, the MSM never guided him as a viable alternative. Just sort of held his hand as he lost. On March 13 2016 06:52 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. not so sure actually. Trump and Cruz are both awful for the R nomination. But then again I don't really see anyone else taking it anymore. Streetfights out in the open after Kasich gets appointed the nomination at the convention despite Trump and Cruz being way ahead of him anyone? Exactly, the claim is that liberals would prefer a Republican nominee who was awful. well, Trump is a nominee who is awful. He's the most hated man to run for president in a long time. I just happen to think that Cruz somehow even manages to edge out on him, not because of how much people don't like him but actually because of his policies. Republican base postponing their revolution for 4 years, getting some random bush/rubio/kasich first as a safe bet into a Trump next election would probably have been the nightmare for Democrats. I could have seen that working for both elections. what do you mean? If their 'safe bet' loses to Hillary (not unlikely) then Trump would be fighting an incumbent which is very unfavorable.
Kasich leads Hillary in polls by like 10 points. Right now he'd be the best thief of Democratic voters.
|
On March 13 2016 07:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2016 06:59 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. That's a strong way to put it, but I definitely noticed early on that when Jeb Bush (ostensibly a shoo-in candidate) was having a poor start compared to the Trump spectacle, the MSM never guided him as a viable alternative. Just sort of held his hand as he lost. On March 13 2016 06:52 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. not so sure actually. Trump and Cruz are both awful for the R nomination. But then again I don't really see anyone else taking it anymore. Streetfights out in the open after Kasich gets appointed the nomination at the convention despite Trump and Cruz being way ahead of him anyone? Exactly, the claim is that liberals would prefer a Republican nominee who was awful. well, Trump is a nominee who is awful. He's the most hated man to run for president in a long time. I just happen to think that Cruz somehow even manages to edge out on him, not because of how much people don't like him but actually because of his policies. Republican base postponing their revolution for 4 years, getting some random bush/rubio/kasich first as a safe bet into a Trump next election would probably have been the nightmare for Democrats. I could have seen that working for both elections. what do you mean? If their 'safe bet' loses to Hillary (not unlikely) then Trump would be fighting an incumbent which is very unfavorable.
I'm not so sure bush/rubio would have lost vs Hillary. Kasich is a bit of a wild card, idk.
You have lots of people on the right angry after 8 years of obama so the turnout is going to be above average whereas you have people on the left that just had obama for 8 years and won't get the same turnout as when obama was running. As long as you pander towards the middle while keeping the "thanks Obama" memes rolling and just keep on telling people that another president would have been totally better I don't really see them struggling with undecided ones either.
Calling it a safe bet was too much but they would have had a fighting chance for sure. But then again, the people here who actually DO vote Republican keep telling us that we have no idea how angry the base is at their party so chances are they really had no chance no matter what going into this.
|
On March 13 2016 07:11 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 07:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 13 2016 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2016 06:59 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. That's a strong way to put it, but I definitely noticed early on that when Jeb Bush (ostensibly a shoo-in candidate) was having a poor start compared to the Trump spectacle, the MSM never guided him as a viable alternative. Just sort of held his hand as he lost. On March 13 2016 06:52 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. not so sure actually. Trump and Cruz are both awful for the R nomination. But then again I don't really see anyone else taking it anymore. Streetfights out in the open after Kasich gets appointed the nomination at the convention despite Trump and Cruz being way ahead of him anyone? Exactly, the claim is that liberals would prefer a Republican nominee who was awful. well, Trump is a nominee who is awful. He's the most hated man to run for president in a long time. I just happen to think that Cruz somehow even manages to edge out on him, not because of how much people don't like him but actually because of his policies. Republican base postponing their revolution for 4 years, getting some random bush/rubio/kasich first as a safe bet into a Trump next election would probably have been the nightmare for Democrats. I could have seen that working for both elections. what do you mean? If their 'safe bet' loses to Hillary (not unlikely) then Trump would be fighting an incumbent which is very unfavorable. Kasich leads Hillary in polls by like 10 points. Right now he'd be the best thief of Democratic voters.
I suppose. I wouldn't put much faith in head to head polls this far away tho. Esp when its a front runner vs a no chance candidate that no one has bothered attacking.
|
Head to head polls continue to be garbage, as every pollster has said for a long time.
|
On March 13 2016 07:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 07:11 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 07:09 Gorsameth wrote:On March 13 2016 07:05 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2016 06:59 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. That's a strong way to put it, but I definitely noticed early on that when Jeb Bush (ostensibly a shoo-in candidate) was having a poor start compared to the Trump spectacle, the MSM never guided him as a viable alternative. Just sort of held his hand as he lost. On March 13 2016 06:52 Toadesstern wrote:On March 13 2016 06:49 Yoav wrote:On March 13 2016 00:32 GoTuNk! wrote:
It's inevitable that Trumps wins the nomination.
Liberal media and the whole establishment remain ignorant to the fact that atacking someone 24/7 on the media means he gets 20 times the exposure of all other candidates together.
How do you think it looks to non-liberals when a bunch of people you dislike (liberal establishment) spend all their time name calling someone? I think Liberals desperately hope the Donald takes the R nomination. not so sure actually. Trump and Cruz are both awful for the R nomination. But then again I don't really see anyone else taking it anymore. Streetfights out in the open after Kasich gets appointed the nomination at the convention despite Trump and Cruz being way ahead of him anyone? Exactly, the claim is that liberals would prefer a Republican nominee who was awful. well, Trump is a nominee who is awful. He's the most hated man to run for president in a long time. I just happen to think that Cruz somehow even manages to edge out on him, not because of how much people don't like him but actually because of his policies. Republican base postponing their revolution for 4 years, getting some random bush/rubio/kasich first as a safe bet into a Trump next election would probably have been the nightmare for Democrats. I could have seen that working for both elections. what do you mean? If their 'safe bet' loses to Hillary (not unlikely) then Trump would be fighting an incumbent which is very unfavorable. Kasich leads Hillary in polls by like 10 points. Right now he'd be the best thief of Democratic voters. I suppose. I wouldn't put much faith in head to head polls this far away tho. Esp when its a front runner vs a no chance candidate that no one has bothered attacking.
Indeed, there's no shoo-in on either side is all I'm saying.
|
If Trump can rally the supporters of the other candidates to come out and vote he would have a pretty decent shot. A lot of people vote to their party no matter who the nominee is and that seems to be what Trump is claiming that he is bringing in a lot of new voters. I dunno if that is true though or just him grand standing.
|
On March 13 2016 07:33 Slaughter wrote:
If Trump can rally the supporters of the other candidates to come out and vote he would have a pretty decent shot. A lot of people vote to their party no matter who the nominee is and that seems to be what Trump is claiming that he is bringing in a lot of new voters. I dunno if that is true though or just him grand standing.
He will have to because the Republicans only make up like 25% of the country. And he needs to pull in independent women and minority groups to seal the deal in the general. Based on recent events, I sort of doubt that will happen. I don't think the population changed that much in 4 years when Romney got dumpstered.
|
The country elected a Republican only 12 years ago. Is there something different that happened to the picture between 2004 and 2008 that the country went over a waterfall where it'll never elect another Republican executive?
|
On March 13 2016 07:59 oBlade wrote:
The country elected a Republican only 12 years ago. Is there something different that happened to the picture between 2004 and 2008 that the country went over a waterfall where it'll never elect another Republican executive?
The tea party drawing the them away from the center during primaries.
|
On March 13 2016 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 07:59 oBlade wrote:
The country elected a Republican only 12 years ago. Is there something different that happened to the picture between 2004 and 2008 that the country went over a waterfall where it'll never elect another Republican executive? The tea party drawing the them away from the center during primaries.
I'm pretty sure hes referring to the iraq civl war. The tea party was only in response to the democratic super majority.
|
On March 13 2016 08:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On March 13 2016 07:59 oBlade wrote:
The country elected a Republican only 12 years ago. Is there something different that happened to the picture between 2004 and 2008 that the country went over a waterfall where it'll never elect another Republican executive? The tea party drawing the them away from the center during primaries. I'm pretty sure hes referring to the iraq civl war. The tea party was only in response to the democratic super majority.
The lie that was the Iraq war and 2007 sub-prime hurt the Republicans with a lot of general election voters. The Tea party was their only way back and its hasn't really worked out for them in public perception.
|
Whether the claim is correct or not (it really doesn't matter, methinks), the site referenced is hilarious:
|
On March 13 2016 08:07 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On March 13 2016 07:59 oBlade wrote:
The country elected a Republican only 12 years ago. Is there something different that happened to the picture between 2004 and 2008 that the country went over a waterfall where it'll never elect another Republican executive? The tea party drawing the them away from the center during primaries. I'm pretty sure hes referring to the iraq civl war. The tea party was only in response to the democratic super majority.
No... Plansix is saying the population hasn't changed between 2012 and 2016, implying something like Republican candidates will never have a chance, and I'm saying that the country also didn't go through any major demographic change between 2004 and 2008.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
On March 13 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 08:07 Sermokala wrote:On March 13 2016 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On March 13 2016 07:59 oBlade wrote:
The country elected a Republican only 12 years ago. Is there something different that happened to the picture between 2004 and 2008 that the country went over a waterfall where it'll never elect another Republican executive? The tea party drawing the them away from the center during primaries. I'm pretty sure hes referring to the iraq civl war. The tea party was only in response to the democratic super majority. No... Plansix is saying the population hasn't changed between 2012 and 2016, implying something like Republican candidates will never have a chance, and I'm saying that the country also didn't go through any major demographic change between 2004 and 2008.
I never said a Republican couldn't win. But if Romney wasn't able to sway the general electorate 4 years ago, Trump isn't "more electable". Or liked. The general public isn't going to suddenly become super pumped that Trump told his supporters to rough up protesters and other behavior.
The Republicans could win, if they ran candidates that the general public has any interest in voting for. But sadly the base they cultivated in the tea party makes that very difficult for them.
|
On March 13 2016 08:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:On March 13 2016 08:07 Sermokala wrote:On March 13 2016 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On March 13 2016 07:59 oBlade wrote:
The country elected a Republican only 12 years ago. Is there something different that happened to the picture between 2004 and 2008 that the country went over a waterfall where it'll never elect another Republican executive? The tea party drawing the them away from the center during primaries. I'm pretty sure hes referring to the iraq civl war. The tea party was only in response to the democratic super majority. No... Plansix is saying the population hasn't changed between 2012 and 2016, implying something like Republican candidates will never have a chance, and I'm saying that the country also didn't go through any major demographic change between 2004 and 2008. I never said a Republican couldn't win. But if Romney wasn't able to sway the general electorate 4 years ago, Trump isn't "more electable". Or liked. The general public isn't going to suddenly become super pumped that Trump told his supporters to rough up protesters and other behavior.
Wait, are you saying Trumps increase in general public voting for primaries, isn't an indication that he can't grab general electorate?
I ain't saying he'll win, but he definitely crosses party lines in terms of general electorate, much so any other republican candidate in the past years.
|
On March 13 2016 08:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2016 08:07 Sermokala wrote:On March 13 2016 08:02 Gorsameth wrote:On March 13 2016 07:59 oBlade wrote:
The country elected a Republican only 12 years ago. Is there something different that happened to the picture between 2004 and 2008 that the country went over a waterfall where it'll never elect another Republican executive? The tea party drawing the them away from the center during primaries. I'm pretty sure hes referring to the iraq civl war. The tea party was only in response to the democratic super majority. No... Plansix is saying the population hasn't changed between 2012 and 2016, implying something like Republican candidates will never have a chance, and I'm saying that the country also didn't go through any major demographic change between 2004 and 2008.
The bad of Bush + the hype of Obama made the GOP turn to what is now the tea party in order to win congress. However as a result the tea party has exerted more and more influence over the Republican nomination process which has driven them further away from the center and has lost them large parts of the undecided vote.
This process has not stopped or been reverted, if anything Trump is making it more pronounced then ever before. Hence the belief by some (myself included) that a Republican president is not happening in the foreseeable future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
