US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3303

On March 14 2016 10:38 Klowney wrote:
Hillary just said that democratic candidates should not get money from private prisons and that they should get closed. Guess who is getting money from them.

On March 14 2016 08:40 JW_DTLA wrote:
I am so done with these arguments over who was more liberal back in the 90s. A bunch of angels dancing on the head of a pin nonsense. What are you going to do now? How will it work? Who will you get to vote and/or pay for this crap? The Democratic debate is devolved into this idiotic purity contest about things that didn't quite happen 20 years ago while Trump is leading the right wing of this country straight into a vulgar fascism-lite. Trump's calls to violence and revenge are far more consequential than the liberal on liberal fights about who was the liberalist back in the day. I want to hear how Bernie/Hillary will address the rising tide of Trump hatred and violence. What are they going to do to address the illegitimate white feelings of loss**.

White feelings of loss = Barack Obama crushed the illusion of white supremacy in this country. Two times he was elected without the majority consent of whites in this country and put black people in charge of justice. Though illegitimate, that is a real feeling of loss for the aged and under-educated Trump supporters who had so little left to lose.

On March 14 2016 10:34 oBlade wrote:

That sounds a lot like what I just said to you.

My only argument has been that his popular vote numbers thus far are normal under the circumstances and therefore they're not evidence or a measure of the strength of his candidacy. If I was as liberal with underlining as you, maybe you'd have seen this earlier.

On March 14 2016 10:47 kwizach wrote:

I know that's what you've been saying, which is why I have responded extensively to that argument by pointing out that there are other measures of the strength of his candidacy than only his popular vote numbers. One such measure is how happy with him as the nominee would Republican voters who did not vote for him in the primary would be, and how likely they (Republican voters still, not the non-Republican general electorate) would be to support him in a general election. In this respect, he fares considerably worse than Romney did in 2012. The facts therefore tell us that despite Trump's numbers in the popular vote, he has weaknesses that Romney did not have. It is mind-blowing that at this point in the discussion you are still not processing this simple information.

On March 14 2016 12:02 JW_DTLA wrote:
What are you two arguing about? Romney versus Trump primary electorate strength? They aren't really comparable because Romney dominated the field of people who wouldn't be Trumpkins, whereas Trumps dominance in low education low income Republicans is super strong. Overall, Romney had a lock solid hold on the deciding and thinking wings of the Republican party itself (the electeds, the apparatchiks, the media). I think that would give Romney the advantage. Also, Cruz is vastly more formidable than the comparatively sorry Not-Romneys.

On March 14 2016 12:08 kwizach wrote:

The point is that among the Republicans who did not vote for Romney for nominee in 2012, he was still a much more acceptable potential nominee than Trump is among the Republicans who did not vote for Trump for nominee in 2016. This article on 538 explains this pretty well. Also, Trump has the highest percentage of people who would either definitely (35%) or likely (13%) not support him in the general election as the Republican nominee among Republican voters who did not vote for him in the primary.