|
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 May 09 2016 13:21 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. He won 7 states with over 50% (New York, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Indiana). I assume you are talking about the middle 5 states (MD through PA). Did those states have the lowest turnout percentages in this cycle? That's an interesting attempt at spin, because it's still record turnout and consequently up from 2012, including the number of votes cast for the frontrunner. In 2016, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania saw 2.3m GOP primary voters. In 2012, those 5 states combined with D.C., Wisconsin, and New York saw 2.1m voters. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. In other words, he won. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. He has more primary votes than Romney did even without California and the other states. You are ignoring the point. This is something that I've been reading a little bit about. Trump's surge in support post Wisconsin was aligned with his refrain that the "system was rigged." Those 6 northeast states were perfectly timed for a comeback by a liberal republican like him. I'm not denying he won, but I'm saying the record voter turnout had record numbers voting against him. This isn't a difficult concept. People are convinced Trump is going to bring out legions of new voters and beat Hillary. There is zero proof of this, which is why it's a pity the GOP voters threw away this opportunity vs such a terrible candidate like Hillary. I'd be amazed if Trump pulled it out.
It's not a point that has any import in a primary between multiple people. On your planet more people voted "against" Kasich, the guy who loves to tout his polling vs. Clinton like it's predictive 6 months from election day arguing he's the best candidate, than any presidential candidate in history.
|
Cruz never had a chance in NY primary when he was campaigning there he was ignored or shouted at. That was after he made his antisemitic remark during the debate about NY values. Go back a dozen or so pages and you see a video of him giving a speech during a fundraiser and nobody bothering to listen as they talk among themselves .
|
On May 09 2016 13:26 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:21 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. He won 7 states with over 50% (New York, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Indiana). I assume you are talking about the middle 5 states (MD through PA). Did those states have the lowest turnout percentages in this cycle? That's an interesting attempt at spin, because it's still record turnout and consequently up from 2012, including the number of votes cast for the frontrunner. In 2016, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania saw 2.3m GOP primary voters. In 2012, those 5 states combined with D.C., Wisconsin, and New York saw 2.1m voters. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. In other words, he won. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. He has more primary votes than Romney did even without California and the other states. You are ignoring the point. This is something that I've been reading a little bit about. Trump's surge in support post Wisconsin was aligned with his refrain that the "system was rigged." Those 6 northeast states were perfectly timed for a comeback by a liberal republican like him. I'm not denying he won, but I'm saying the record voter turnout had record numbers voting against him. This isn't a difficult concept. People are convinced Trump is going to bring out legions of new voters and beat Hillary. There is zero proof of this, which is why it's a pity the GOP voters threw away this opportunity vs such a terrible candidate like Hillary. I'd be amazed if Trump pulled it out. It's not a point that has any import in a primary between multiple people. On your planet more people voted "against" Kasich, the guy who loves to tout his polling vs. Clinton like it's predictive 6 months from election day arguing he's the best candidate, than any presidential candidate in history.
More people did in fact vote against Kasich. The only reason he won his home state was because Rubio people bit the bullet and voted for him.
But we can think differently. I don't deny, and you would agree, that Trump drove the record turnout. That means he drove turnout both for, and against, himself. Voter turnout didn't surge because there were 17 candidates, most of whom never broke 5%. It surged because of him.
he won fair and square, but really to play up what happened as some new way Republicans are going to win from here on out makes no sense. It's a bad argument, that's all.
|
On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:26 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 13:21 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. He won 7 states with over 50% (New York, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Indiana). I assume you are talking about the middle 5 states (MD through PA). Did those states have the lowest turnout percentages in this cycle? That's an interesting attempt at spin, because it's still record turnout and consequently up from 2012, including the number of votes cast for the frontrunner. In 2016, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania saw 2.3m GOP primary voters. In 2012, those 5 states combined with D.C., Wisconsin, and New York saw 2.1m voters. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. In other words, he won. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. He has more primary votes than Romney did even without California and the other states. You are ignoring the point. This is something that I've been reading a little bit about. Trump's surge in support post Wisconsin was aligned with his refrain that the "system was rigged." Those 6 northeast states were perfectly timed for a comeback by a liberal republican like him. I'm not denying he won, but I'm saying the record voter turnout had record numbers voting against him. This isn't a difficult concept. People are convinced Trump is going to bring out legions of new voters and beat Hillary. There is zero proof of this, which is why it's a pity the GOP voters threw away this opportunity vs such a terrible candidate like Hillary. I'd be amazed if Trump pulled it out. It's not a point that has any import in a primary between multiple people. On your planet more people voted "against" Kasich, the guy who loves to tout his polling vs. Clinton like it's predictive 6 months from election day arguing he's the best candidate, than any presidential candidate in history. More people did in fact vote against Kasich. The only reason he won his home state was because Rubio people bit the bullet and voted for him. But we can think differently. I don't deny, and you would agree, that Trump drove the record turnout. That means he drove turnout both for, and against, himself. Voter turnout didn't surge because there were 17 candidates, most of whom never broke 5%. It surged because of him.
Okay, so more people voted "against" everyone, what do we do with this information?
I actually wouldn't agree. It was a strong ensemble performance at a time when the party had no clear direction and leading faces - which is where the 17 candidates came from. I find you've misinterpreted what "against" means entirely. If you're choosing between soup and salad like the Democrats, it might make sense. If you're ordering a pizza, is a vote for onions a vote "against" pepperoni? Most people are satisfied with pepperoni.
On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:
he won fair and square, but really to play up what happened as some new way Republicans are going to win from here on out makes no sense. It's a bad argument, that's all.
Who made that argument? And what do you mean by "here on out" - are you talking about the 2016 general election or The Future™?
|
On May 09 2016 13:45 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:26 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 13:21 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. He won 7 states with over 50% (New York, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Indiana). I assume you are talking about the middle 5 states (MD through PA). Did those states have the lowest turnout percentages in this cycle? That's an interesting attempt at spin, because it's still record turnout and consequently up from 2012, including the number of votes cast for the frontrunner. In 2016, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania saw 2.3m GOP primary voters. In 2012, those 5 states combined with D.C., Wisconsin, and New York saw 2.1m voters. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. In other words, he won. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. He has more primary votes than Romney did even without California and the other states. You are ignoring the point. This is something that I've been reading a little bit about. Trump's surge in support post Wisconsin was aligned with his refrain that the "system was rigged." Those 6 northeast states were perfectly timed for a comeback by a liberal republican like him. I'm not denying he won, but I'm saying the record voter turnout had record numbers voting against him. This isn't a difficult concept. People are convinced Trump is going to bring out legions of new voters and beat Hillary. There is zero proof of this, which is why it's a pity the GOP voters threw away this opportunity vs such a terrible candidate like Hillary. I'd be amazed if Trump pulled it out. It's not a point that has any import in a primary between multiple people. On your planet more people voted "against" Kasich, the guy who loves to tout his polling vs. Clinton like it's predictive 6 months from election day arguing he's the best candidate, than any presidential candidate in history. More people did in fact vote against Kasich. The only reason he won his home state was because Rubio people bit the bullet and voted for him. But we can think differently. I don't deny, and you would agree, that Trump drove the record turnout. That means he drove turnout both for, and against, himself. Voter turnout didn't surge because there were 17 candidates, most of whom never broke 5%. It surged because of him. Okay, so more people voted "against" everyone, what do we do with this information? I actually wouldn't agree. It was a strong ensemble performance at a time when the party had no clear direction and leading faces - which is where the 17 candidates came from. I find you've misinterpreted what "against" means entirely. If you're choosing between soup and salad like the Democrats, it might make sense. If you're ordering a pizza, is a vote for onions a vote "against" pepperoni? Most people are satisfied with pepperoni. Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:
he won fair and square, but really to play up what happened as some new way Republicans are going to win from here on out makes no sense. It's a bad argument, that's all. Who made that argument? And what do you mean by "here on out" - are you talking about the 2016 general election or The Future™?
For the longest time, exit polling showed that incredibly large numbers of GOP voters would not be satisfied with him as the nominee. And if memory serves, most of them were unhappy with the choices they were presented. I don't have the exact data on hand because I didn't expect this point to be argued.
In either case, then one of the primary Trump arguments fail. Either Trump drove turnout, thus demonstrating a large swath of opposition (which he would deny), or he didn't-- in which case Trump's "I'm bringing new people into the party" line falls apart.
In either case, he is quite weak going forward. I expect the gap to close vs Hillary for Obvious reasons, but to say he has a reasonable shot at winning is a baseless claim.
Many Trump people make the argument that "look at all the new voters, this is how the GOP can win again!" referring to both 2016 and beyond. That's the generic talking point I was referring to.
|
On May 09 2016 13:59 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:45 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:26 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 13:21 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. He won 7 states with over 50% (New York, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Indiana). I assume you are talking about the middle 5 states (MD through PA). Did those states have the lowest turnout percentages in this cycle? That's an interesting attempt at spin, because it's still record turnout and consequently up from 2012, including the number of votes cast for the frontrunner. In 2016, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania saw 2.3m GOP primary voters. In 2012, those 5 states combined with D.C., Wisconsin, and New York saw 2.1m voters. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. In other words, he won. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. He has more primary votes than Romney did even without California and the other states. You are ignoring the point. This is something that I've been reading a little bit about. Trump's surge in support post Wisconsin was aligned with his refrain that the "system was rigged." Those 6 northeast states were perfectly timed for a comeback by a liberal republican like him. I'm not denying he won, but I'm saying the record voter turnout had record numbers voting against him. This isn't a difficult concept. People are convinced Trump is going to bring out legions of new voters and beat Hillary. There is zero proof of this, which is why it's a pity the GOP voters threw away this opportunity vs such a terrible candidate like Hillary. I'd be amazed if Trump pulled it out. It's not a point that has any import in a primary between multiple people. On your planet more people voted "against" Kasich, the guy who loves to tout his polling vs. Clinton like it's predictive 6 months from election day arguing he's the best candidate, than any presidential candidate in history. More people did in fact vote against Kasich. The only reason he won his home state was because Rubio people bit the bullet and voted for him. But we can think differently. I don't deny, and you would agree, that Trump drove the record turnout. That means he drove turnout both for, and against, himself. Voter turnout didn't surge because there were 17 candidates, most of whom never broke 5%. It surged because of him. Okay, so more people voted "against" everyone, what do we do with this information? I actually wouldn't agree. It was a strong ensemble performance at a time when the party had no clear direction and leading faces - which is where the 17 candidates came from. I find you've misinterpreted what "against" means entirely. If you're choosing between soup and salad like the Democrats, it might make sense. If you're ordering a pizza, is a vote for onions a vote "against" pepperoni? Most people are satisfied with pepperoni. On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:
he won fair and square, but really to play up what happened as some new way Republicans are going to win from here on out makes no sense. It's a bad argument, that's all. Who made that argument? And what do you mean by "here on out" - are you talking about the 2016 general election or The Future™? For the longest time, exit polling showed that incredibly large numbers of GOP voters would not be satisfied with him as the nominee. And if memory serves, most of them were unhappy with the choices they were presented. I don't have the exact data on hand because I didn't expect this point to be argued. In either case, then one of the primary Trump arguments fail. Either Trump drove turnout, thus demonstrating a large swath of opposition (which he would deny), or he didn't-- in which case Trump's "I'm bringing new people into the party" line falls apart. In either case, he is quite weak going forward. I expect the gap to close vs Hillary for Obvious reasons, but to say he has a reasonable shot at winning is a baseless claim. Many Trump people make the argument that "look at all the new voters, this is how the GOP can win again!" referring to both 2016 and beyond. That's the generic talking point I was referring to.
there was a nice article on 538 on that.
Long story short: lots of people voting in a primary is indicative of a competetive race (within the party) and pretty much nothing else.
I would be surprised if he can get what romney got vs Obama if there's not some major crisis happening any time soon that helps him.
|
On May 09 2016 14:04 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 13:59 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:45 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:26 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 13:21 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. He won 7 states with over 50% (New York, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Indiana). I assume you are talking about the middle 5 states (MD through PA). Did those states have the lowest turnout percentages in this cycle? That's an interesting attempt at spin, because it's still record turnout and consequently up from 2012, including the number of votes cast for the frontrunner. In 2016, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania saw 2.3m GOP primary voters. In 2012, those 5 states combined with D.C., Wisconsin, and New York saw 2.1m voters. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. In other words, he won. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. He has more primary votes than Romney did even without California and the other states. You are ignoring the point. This is something that I've been reading a little bit about. Trump's surge in support post Wisconsin was aligned with his refrain that the "system was rigged." Those 6 northeast states were perfectly timed for a comeback by a liberal republican like him. I'm not denying he won, but I'm saying the record voter turnout had record numbers voting against him. This isn't a difficult concept. People are convinced Trump is going to bring out legions of new voters and beat Hillary. There is zero proof of this, which is why it's a pity the GOP voters threw away this opportunity vs such a terrible candidate like Hillary. I'd be amazed if Trump pulled it out. It's not a point that has any import in a primary between multiple people. On your planet more people voted "against" Kasich, the guy who loves to tout his polling vs. Clinton like it's predictive 6 months from election day arguing he's the best candidate, than any presidential candidate in history. More people did in fact vote against Kasich. The only reason he won his home state was because Rubio people bit the bullet and voted for him. But we can think differently. I don't deny, and you would agree, that Trump drove the record turnout. That means he drove turnout both for, and against, himself. Voter turnout didn't surge because there were 17 candidates, most of whom never broke 5%. It surged because of him. Okay, so more people voted "against" everyone, what do we do with this information? I actually wouldn't agree. It was a strong ensemble performance at a time when the party had no clear direction and leading faces - which is where the 17 candidates came from. I find you've misinterpreted what "against" means entirely. If you're choosing between soup and salad like the Democrats, it might make sense. If you're ordering a pizza, is a vote for onions a vote "against" pepperoni? Most people are satisfied with pepperoni. On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:
he won fair and square, but really to play up what happened as some new way Republicans are going to win from here on out makes no sense. It's a bad argument, that's all. Who made that argument? And what do you mean by "here on out" - are you talking about the 2016 general election or The Future™? For the longest time, exit polling showed that incredibly large numbers of GOP voters would not be satisfied with him as the nominee. And if memory serves, most of them were unhappy with the choices they were presented. I don't have the exact data on hand because I didn't expect this point to be argued. In either case, then one of the primary Trump arguments fail. Either Trump drove turnout, thus demonstrating a large swath of opposition (which he would deny), or he didn't-- in which case Trump's "I'm bringing new people into the party" line falls apart. In either case, he is quite weak going forward. I expect the gap to close vs Hillary for Obvious reasons, but to say he has a reasonable shot at winning is a baseless claim. Many Trump people make the argument that "look at all the new voters, this is how the GOP can win again!" referring to both 2016 and beyond. That's the generic talking point I was referring to. there was a nice article on 538 on that. Long story short: lots of people voting in a primary is indicative of a competetive race (within the party) and pretty much nothing else. I would be surprised if he can get what romney got vs Obama if there's not some major crisis happening any time soon that helps him.
Trump's goal is to make the electorate look as much like a mid term election as possible. He is hoping for abysmal turnout, that's why he wanted to run against Hillary so bad.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sandernistas doing god's work for trump.
|
On May 09 2016 16:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 14:04 Toadesstern wrote:On May 09 2016 13:59 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:45 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:26 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 13:21 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 13:14 oBlade wrote:On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
Record number of primary voters, and apparently most of them were motivated to vote for someone besides Trump. So that argument holds no water. And turnout is an interesting, considering that the 5 states he won with over 50% had some of the lowest voter turnout percentages in this whole cycle. He won 7 states with over 50% (New York, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Indiana). I assume you are talking about the middle 5 states (MD through PA). Did those states have the lowest turnout percentages in this cycle? That's an interesting attempt at spin, because it's still record turnout and consequently up from 2012, including the number of votes cast for the frontrunner. In 2016, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania saw 2.3m GOP primary voters. In 2012, those 5 states combined with D.C., Wisconsin, and New York saw 2.1m voters. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
So basically people gave up opposing him after New York. In other words, he won. On May 09 2016 12:49 Introvert wrote:
There is no great drive for Trump. He has his cultists, but most are less than pleased, even if they'll hold their nose and pull the lever. He has more primary votes than Romney did even without California and the other states. You are ignoring the point. This is something that I've been reading a little bit about. Trump's surge in support post Wisconsin was aligned with his refrain that the "system was rigged." Those 6 northeast states were perfectly timed for a comeback by a liberal republican like him. I'm not denying he won, but I'm saying the record voter turnout had record numbers voting against him. This isn't a difficult concept. People are convinced Trump is going to bring out legions of new voters and beat Hillary. There is zero proof of this, which is why it's a pity the GOP voters threw away this opportunity vs such a terrible candidate like Hillary. I'd be amazed if Trump pulled it out. It's not a point that has any import in a primary between multiple people. On your planet more people voted "against" Kasich, the guy who loves to tout his polling vs. Clinton like it's predictive 6 months from election day arguing he's the best candidate, than any presidential candidate in history. More people did in fact vote against Kasich. The only reason he won his home state was because Rubio people bit the bullet and voted for him. But we can think differently. I don't deny, and you would agree, that Trump drove the record turnout. That means he drove turnout both for, and against, himself. Voter turnout didn't surge because there were 17 candidates, most of whom never broke 5%. It surged because of him. Okay, so more people voted "against" everyone, what do we do with this information? I actually wouldn't agree. It was a strong ensemble performance at a time when the party had no clear direction and leading faces - which is where the 17 candidates came from. I find you've misinterpreted what "against" means entirely. If you're choosing between soup and salad like the Democrats, it might make sense. If you're ordering a pizza, is a vote for onions a vote "against" pepperoni? Most people are satisfied with pepperoni. On May 09 2016 13:31 Introvert wrote:
he won fair and square, but really to play up what happened as some new way Republicans are going to win from here on out makes no sense. It's a bad argument, that's all. Who made that argument? And what do you mean by "here on out" - are you talking about the 2016 general election or The Future™? For the longest time, exit polling showed that incredibly large numbers of GOP voters would not be satisfied with him as the nominee. And if memory serves, most of them were unhappy with the choices they were presented. I don't have the exact data on hand because I didn't expect this point to be argued. In either case, then one of the primary Trump arguments fail. Either Trump drove turnout, thus demonstrating a large swath of opposition (which he would deny), or he didn't-- in which case Trump's "I'm bringing new people into the party" line falls apart. In either case, he is quite weak going forward. I expect the gap to close vs Hillary for Obvious reasons, but to say he has a reasonable shot at winning is a baseless claim. Many Trump people make the argument that "look at all the new voters, this is how the GOP can win again!" referring to both 2016 and beyond. That's the generic talking point I was referring to. there was a nice article on 538 on that. Long story short: lots of people voting in a primary is indicative of a competetive race (within the party) and pretty much nothing else. I would be surprised if he can get what romney got vs Obama if there's not some major crisis happening any time soon that helps him. Trump's goal is to make the electorate look as much like a mid term election as possible. He is hoping for abysmal turnout, that's why he wanted to run against Hillary so bad.
Stop kidding yourself. He and everyone else in the GOP understand Sanders would be much easier to beat / campaign against to retain Congress than Clinton.
|
Checks and balances in American politics: Sarah Palin controls the speaker of the house.
|
On May 09 2016 22:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Checks and balances in American politics: Sarah Palin controls the speaker of the house.
I am confused by the US news agencies are reporting on her saying that at all. It’s like they like empowering these people who would have no power if the news media didn’t report every time they break wind at a mic.
|
News media driven by pofit go for sensationalist crap intead of news?
Who could have seen this coming...
|
On May 09 2016 22:58 Velr wrote:
News media driven by pofit go for sensationalist crap intead of news?
Who could have seen this coming...
There was an article recently, I think in the NYT, that said the average age of the reporters covering the campaigns is 27. And that most major news outlets have removed their foreign bureaus and have almost no international staff.
US news coverage is imploding slowly under the weight of it’s self imposed 24/7 cycle. The fact that Buzzfeed is funding better reporting than some major outlets shows a dark future.
Note: Buzzfeed is funding the better reporting off of click bait and quizzes. They are very open about it, which is weirdly refreshing.
|
Buzzfeed has decent news sometimes, and I think it's better to be pleasantly surprised that it's not clickbait rather than be repeatedly disappointed at the proliferation of crap blogs and opinion columns in WaPo
|
On May 09 2016 22:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 22:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Checks and balances in American politics: Sarah Palin controls the speaker of the house. I am confused by the US news agencies are reporting on her saying that at all. It’s like they like empowering these people who would have no power if the news media didn’t report every time they break wind at a mic.
Yeah, it's pretty weird. The fact that they point out how this worked with Cantor is also interesting. At this point, I consider Paul Ryan evicted. Which is really weird. DOes anyone else agree that this is probably just kind of the end of Paul Ryan, at least in terms of his seat? Palin and the party nominee against you? How do you come back from that in this age of the republican party?
Edit:
Holy shit based Trump laying the fucking SMACK DOWN:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/us/politics/donald-trumps-warning-to-paul-ryan-signals-further-gop-discord.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
“I’m going to do what I have to do — I have millions of people that voted for me,” Mr. Trump said on ABC’s “This Week.” “So I have to stay true to my principles also. And I’m a conservative, but don’t forget, this is called the Republican Party. It’s not called the Conservative Party.”
|
On May 09 2016 23:50 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 22:51 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2016 22:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Checks and balances in American politics: Sarah Palin controls the speaker of the house. I am confused by the US news agencies are reporting on her saying that at all. It’s like they like empowering these people who would have no power if the news media didn’t report every time they break wind at a mic. Yeah, it's pretty weird. The fact that they point out how this worked with Cantor is also interesting. At this point, I consider Paul Ryan evicted. Which is really weird. DOes anyone else agree that this is probably just kind of the end of Paul Ryan, at least in terms of his seat? Palin and the party nominee against you? How do you come back from that in this age of the republican party?
You break the party and you now have the GOP and the Tea Party both calling themselves the Republican Party.
|
On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless.
That's either a straight-up lie or a just complete ignorance, xDaunt. He never got a majority in a state while Rubio was in the race, and it took him a month after Rubio dropped out and there were only 3 people in the race to get his first majority in New York.
Unless I missed something.
|
And now Trump distances himself from Palin's comments, but not really. In his interview, all he says is that she is terrific and that he didn't know she'd rally against Ryan. I feel like Trump is just getting all his leverage in order before his meetings. He's wanting to make it clear that he's got plenty of dogs to sick on the establishment if they really want a civil war. I think Trump's meeting is essentially negotiating the ownership of the party. And Trump is in a great place to make this deal...
|
On May 10 2016 00:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 23:50 Mohdoo wrote:On May 09 2016 22:51 Plansix wrote:On May 09 2016 22:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Checks and balances in American politics: Sarah Palin controls the speaker of the house. I am confused by the US news agencies are reporting on her saying that at all. It’s like they like empowering these people who would have no power if the news media didn’t report every time they break wind at a mic. Yeah, it's pretty weird. The fact that they point out how this worked with Cantor is also interesting. At this point, I consider Paul Ryan evicted. Which is really weird. DOes anyone else agree that this is probably just kind of the end of Paul Ryan, at least in terms of his seat? Palin and the party nominee against you? How do you come back from that in this age of the republican party? You break the party and you now have the GOP and the Tea Party both calling themselves the Republican Party.
The Tea Party is dead. The Trumpkins have no illusions about controlling spending or pseudo-libertarian nonsense. Trumpkins are very clear about being alt-right White nationalists. The America they want to rebuild is one where their privileges were honored, instead of disrespected as they have been in the Obama era. Post Trump, there will be two wings to the Republican party:
(1) White cultural nationalists (Trump, Arpaio, Palin, LePage, Christie, Carson, King, Perry, Limbaugh, Hannity)
(2) Business/Donor class politicians (Bush, Ryan, Cantor, McConnell, #NeverTrumpers ... uh running out people here)
|
On May 09 2016 11:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 09 2016 10:51 Introvert wrote:On May 09 2016 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 09 2016 10:34 Introvert wrote:
Only reason the dumb pledge was necessary was because of Trump's whining about being "treated fairly." And he was still hedging even after he signed it. Trump deserves no loyalty, and I assume most of the other 60% of GOP primary voters would agree. Paul Ryan isn't obliged to go along with every asinine comment Trump makes. Especially considering that his own district went against Trump like 2:1.
I have my own issues with Ryan, but his comments were 100% correct and appropriate. If Trump says he doesn't want certain people, then they are released to go elsewhere. Majorities of republican voters are supporting Trump and his message. If the GOP isn't going to support Trump, then they will be flaunting the will of their voters. I don't think that such action will end well for the GOP. He didn't have a majority in a single state until New York, if memory serves. He has like 40% of the popular vote. He's deeply polarizing, and chances are, quite toxic. So imo they are smart to stay away. Remember he only got close because of the various front-runner biased state rules. He hasn't a majority of the vote in the early states because he has been running against a large field. Once the field shrank down to four candidate, he was reliably scoring majorities in the states that he ran. So yes, I think that it is fair to say that a majority of republicans are supporting him now. They may not find him to be their perfect candidate (myself included), but they are going to back him as the best option nonetheless.
You are going to vote for this lunatic?
Wow. Just wow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
