|
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 October 11 2016 03:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:42 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2016 03:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Honestly the whole Republican primary was doomed once it became clear none of the non-Trumps were willing to bow out early, which I totally missed. I didn't realize just how huge an advantage in delegates the weird states-rights distribution would give Trump and how hard that would be to break.
I think if those debates had been Trump + 1 on a stage where they're roughly even in the polls, we would have been treated to the same word salad nonsense we got during the main debates when he was talking half the time. And that might have been enough to let the other person eke out a win, especially since they could have done some opposition research on him instead of each other.
Instead we got Rubio and Cruz arguing over each other's immigration reform bills and Christie babbling about being a state prosecutor while everyone else just kinda waits to get asked a question. The "other person" would have ended up being Cruz, no? If people had dropped out more conservatively (as it were). Depends on the timeline; at times Cruz was in a pretty desperate spot, and Iowa was the thing that really brought him into the picture big time. I think it could have been Cruz, Bush, or Rubio. Maaaaybe even Christie. But all of them staying in made it really bad for them. (Carson and Fiorina were ultimately inconsequential)
I get that in a vacuum you can see those might be strong 1v1 opponents for Trump. So could Rand Paul, who was one of the people polling best vs. Clinton before the election got going. But if we ran the primaries again, and assuming the results we actually saw weren't unusual, you'd have to change the conditions very early in order to get Bush or Christie to the fore. Like you say Carson was inconsequential, but he did better than Christie and Bush and also led polls at one point during the primary season (more recently than Bush who only led polls before anyone was running). It would involve being able to predict the "threat" of Trump winning and then use a party coordination that doesn't exist to basically pick a champion and make everyone else quit.
|
On October 11 2016 03:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Honestly the whole Republican primary was doomed once it became clear none of the non-Trumps were willing to bow out early, which I totally missed. I didn't realize just how huge an advantage in delegates the weird states-rights distribution would give Trump and how hard that would be to break.
I think if those debates had been Trump + 1 on a stage where they're roughly even in the polls, we would have been treated to the same word salad nonsense we got during the main debates when he was talking half the time. And that might have been enough to let the other person eke out a win, especially since they could have done some opposition research on him instead of each other.
Instead we got Rubio and Cruz arguing over each other's immigration reform bills and Christie babbling about being a state prosecutor while everyone else just kinda waits to get asked a question.
It's not only that. "Moderate" republican candidates had their hand tied. They couldn't expose Trump for what he is, a fraud exploiting the most vile instincts of people because of two reasons: first, because the party has been doing that for years in a more subtle acceptable manner, and also because it would have angered an incredibly radicalized base. And having the tea party nuts against you is a death sentence in the gop today.
Of course it must have itchef Rubio to say that Trump remarks were racist, that his wall crap makes 0 sense, that muslims are not a threat, etc etc.. But when your party consists of angry disgruntled uneducated white men, that's not a good idea.
|
On October 11 2016 04:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Honestly the whole Republican primary was doomed once it became clear none of the non-Trumps were willing to bow out early, which I totally missed. I didn't realize just how huge an advantage in delegates the weird states-rights distribution would give Trump and how hard that would be to break.
I think if those debates had been Trump + 1 on a stage where they're roughly even in the polls, we would have been treated to the same word salad nonsense we got during the main debates when he was talking half the time. And that might have been enough to let the other person eke out a win, especially since they could have done some opposition research on him instead of each other.
Instead we got Rubio and Cruz arguing over each other's immigration reform bills and Christie babbling about being a state prosecutor while everyone else just kinda waits to get asked a question. It's not only that. "Moderate" republican candidates had their hand tied. They couldn't expose Trump for what he is, a fraud exploiting the most vile instincts of people because of two reasons: first, because the party has been doing that for years in a more subtle acceptable manner, and also because it would have angered an incredibly radicalized base. And having the tea party nuts against you is a death sentence in the gop today.
That is one of the hilarious contradictions of the Republican Party that made Trump the frontrunner in the first place.
|
The question is, will the Republicans admit such in their post mortem.
|
On October 11 2016 04:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
The question is, will the Republicans admit such in their post mortem.
Nope, not before they're voted out of office and replaced.
|
On October 11 2016 04:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 03:45 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 11 2016 03:42 oBlade wrote:On October 11 2016 03:26 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Honestly the whole Republican primary was doomed once it became clear none of the non-Trumps were willing to bow out early, which I totally missed. I didn't realize just how huge an advantage in delegates the weird states-rights distribution would give Trump and how hard that would be to break.
I think if those debates had been Trump + 1 on a stage where they're roughly even in the polls, we would have been treated to the same word salad nonsense we got during the main debates when he was talking half the time. And that might have been enough to let the other person eke out a win, especially since they could have done some opposition research on him instead of each other.
Instead we got Rubio and Cruz arguing over each other's immigration reform bills and Christie babbling about being a state prosecutor while everyone else just kinda waits to get asked a question. The "other person" would have ended up being Cruz, no? If people had dropped out more conservatively (as it were). Depends on the timeline; at times Cruz was in a pretty desperate spot, and Iowa was the thing that really brought him into the picture big time. I think it could have been Cruz, Bush, or Rubio. Maaaaybe even Christie. But all of them staying in made it really bad for them. (Carson and Fiorina were ultimately inconsequential) I get that in a vacuum you can see those might be strong 1v1 opponents for Trump. So could Rand Paul, who was one of the people polling best vs. Clinton before the election got going. But if we ran the primaries again, and assuming the results we actually saw weren't unusual, you'd have to change the conditions very early in order to get Bush or Christie to the fore. Like you say Carson was inconsequential, but he did better than Christie and Bush and also led polls at one point during the primary season (more recently than Bush who only led polls before anyone was running). It would involve being able to predict the "threat" of Trump winning and then use a party coordination that doesn't exist to basically pick a champion and make everyone else quit.
Well yeah. I'm not saying that it's surprising Trump won-and if things were repeated he would probably win again, because nobody knew what they were doing. After all, that's what the actual 538 model predicted even if they tried to argue it away.
The cocktail of the bizarre delegate allocation making people think staying in was worth it with <15% of the vote, that same allocation giving Trump a huge edge, and everyone wanting their own slice of the pie killed them. But, in an alternate world where Trump ended up 1v1...I'm not sure. He's soooo fucking bad at debating against someone who has more guns to fire at her than any candidate for a long time.
Heck, I think I would still maintain that Cruz might have won the primary with an earlier Rubio (ESPECIALLY Rubio)+Kasich dropout-it cost him a couple key states and a lot of his momentum. Consider what might have happened if it had just been Cruz v. Trump at a debate after the Heidi tweets-I think it might have resembled the recent debates more than the gladhanding at the rest of the primary debates.
|
Why is the establishment abandoning him? they should have gone silent and endure his bs for another month. Literally had to wait for 30 days and it would be over and they could resume with an intact party. Now the defectors just angered the trumpers and will probably have their grudge for a while longer. At least pence isn't doing something stupid.
|
Gerrymandering makes it so you only need to fear your own party in a primary. You can’t lose to the democrats, but you can’t work with them for risk of being voted off the party ticket.
|
On October 11 2016 04:22 biology]major wrote:
Why is the establishment abandoning him? they should have gone silent and endure his bs for another month. Literally had to wait for 30 days and it would be over and they could resume with an intact party. Now the defectors just angered the trumpers and will probably have their grudge for a while longer. At least pence isn't doing something stupid.
They are worried about their own elections.
|
On October 11 2016 04:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 04:18 ticklishmusic wrote:
The question is, will the Republicans admit such in their post mortem. Nope, not before they're voted out of office and replaced.
Looks like we're in this for the long haul.
|
Media narrative on Trump voters aside, somebody seriously expects RINOs to admit culpability of any kind to restore their credibility enough to criticize future nominees? This election is decades in the making. The first change is retiring or losing their jobs.
|
Trump beat Cruz among evangelicals pretty much from the start. Cruz never got the votes he needed in the South. Maybe having the moderate/ whatever vote coalesce could have pushed him to a win, but Cruz was never a strong candidate, merely the most tenacious.
|
On October 11 2016 04:22 biology]major wrote:
Why is the establishment abandoning him? they should have gone silent and endure his bs for another month. Literally had to wait for 30 days and it would be over and they could resume with an intact party. Now the defectors just angered the trumpers and will probably have their grudge for a while longer. At least pence isn't doing something stupid.
Because they were going to lose down ticket and the toxic sludge of Trump was bleeding into their house races.
And the party is supposed to survive beyond a single candidate, which the Trump camp has clearly stated they want to burn the party down if they can’t win.
|
On October 11 2016 04:23 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 04:22 biology]major wrote:
Why is the establishment abandoning him? they should have gone silent and endure his bs for another month. Literally had to wait for 30 days and it would be over and they could resume with an intact party. Now the defectors just angered the trumpers and will probably have their grudge for a while longer. At least pence isn't doing something stupid. They are worried about their own elections.
They aren't going to win without the help of trump voters.
|
On October 11 2016 04:24 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 04:23 farvacola wrote:On October 11 2016 04:22 biology]major wrote:
Why is the establishment abandoning him? they should have gone silent and endure his bs for another month. Literally had to wait for 30 days and it would be over and they could resume with an intact party. Now the defectors just angered the trumpers and will probably have their grudge for a while longer. At least pence isn't doing something stupid. They are worried about their own elections. They aren't going to win without the help of trump voters.
That may be.
|
United States43185 Posts
On October 11 2016 04:24 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 04:23 farvacola wrote:On October 11 2016 04:22 biology]major wrote:
Why is the establishment abandoning him? they should have gone silent and endure his bs for another month. Literally had to wait for 30 days and it would be over and they could resume with an intact party. Now the defectors just angered the trumpers and will probably have their grudge for a while longer. At least pence isn't doing something stupid. They are worried about their own elections. They aren't going to win without the help of trump voters.
They also aren't going to win without moderates. Hence their problem. Moderates don't like people who sound like Trump.
|
On October 11 2016 04:24 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2016 04:23 farvacola wrote:On October 11 2016 04:22 biology]major wrote:
Why is the establishment abandoning him? they should have gone silent and endure his bs for another month. Literally had to wait for 30 days and it would be over and they could resume with an intact party. Now the defectors just angered the trumpers and will probably have their grudge for a while longer. At least pence isn't doing something stupid. They are worried about their own elections. They aren't going to win without the help of trump voters.
They could lose because of Trump. If Republican women silently vote against the ticket because of Trump, they could bleed house seats. That is the risk of alienating women, which is what Trump is doing.
|
Alex Jones' best work yet, flies helped him uncover an inter-dimensional conspiracy by landing on Obama
|
Canada11367 Posts
I always assumed he was being hyperbolic about certain politicians being demons. Apparently not.
|
Personally, I'm thankful to Trump for exposing how quite a few Americans honestly feel. We should use this opportunity to have honest discussions about why they feel the way they do and hopefully convince them to see the good in people different form them
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
