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.
The proportion of Americans who say a religious day of rest is personally important to them has dropped to 50%, reflecting growing secularism over recent decades, according to a new poll.
A similar question asked in a 1978 survey showed 74% of respondents saying the Sabbath had personal religious significance.
The new poll also showed a big fall in those saying they attended weekly religious services, from 55% in 1978 to 27% now. Jews were least likely to attend services and Mormons were most likely.
The survey was carried out by YouGov on behalf of the Deseret News, a “family-oriented” news site based in Salt Lake City. It questioned 1,691 Americans across religious, racial, gender and age groups.
The poll found that more than six in 10 Americans agreed that it was important for society to have a day of the week set aside for spiritual rest. YouGov adjusted the day depending on the respondent’s religious affiliation: Sunday for Christians, Saturday for Jews and Friday for Muslims.
Young Americans – the so-called millennial generation – are the least likely to consider the Sabbath to have religious or spiritual meaning: 41% of those born in the run-up to the millennium said it was personally significant, compared to 58% of those born before 1945.
Helps explain why social conservatism is a dead idea. This is a big reason I think Trump is a blessing in disguise for the GOP. No matter how you look at it, the current model is toast. They need a new brand. Trump is at least a different brand.
How is religiosity "Social Conservatism?"
I had assumed social conservatism is => wanting a deregulation of social norms. In other words, keeping government out of the private/social space. Examples would be enforced separation of church and state but also no Civil Rights laws.
You aren't describing a functional coalition. There is no group of people who want principled social conservatism (see the election of Barry Goldwater). But there is a dwindling population of evangelical Christians who would vote their Values into Law that punishes others (see success of Bush2, but failure of Cruz). Values Voters have no limited government principles and seek unlimited enforcement of their interpretation of their own religion on other people. The Values Voters have nothing to do with limited government, principled social conservatism.
I guess the issue is that the term conservative is being used as pejorative and not a descriptor.
In my head:
Conservative: Wants as little government influence as possible to emphasize citizen rights Liberal: Wants government oversight to amend perceived/proven issues
Example: Fiscal conservatives wants less taxes while social liberals wants anti-discrimination laws
Democratic Platforms and Republican Platforms then amend these terms.
Lord Tolkien summed up the email bullshit nicely. The saddest part about it is how much people have bought into it and believe it is a serious issue and not some cooked up charge that could be levied against like half the Bush administration.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
Well those are objective facts (as much as all polls can be anyway), no matter who says them, so Hillary supporters can dismiss them at their own peril.
So polls are objective facts when they suit your argument, but when they're shitting on Bernie you don't care about them. But you're a bastion of objectivity so I'll just take you at your word.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
1. Define "independent" in terms more useful than "not registered with either party", because that ranges from tinfoil hat libertarians to raging communists, and we'll have a discussion.
2. Clearly the person who is losing the popular vote by 3million is the stronger general election candidate... at least, in Bernie's pink unicorn lalaland. Is Clinton going to have a battle in the general election? Probably. However, given the votes so far, I don't think there is much doubt that Clinton has a better chance than Bernie, if only because she has significantly broader support from her own base, and the center. Bernie has more support to the left, but there are simply fewer people on the left (as evidenced by the popular support lead).
3. What opposing trends? Clinton's performance throughout the election seems pretty stable. Unless curbstomping Bernie in PA is somehow a sign that she is losing support...
4. She is weak to attack ads about her trustworthiness. All candidates have weaknesses. Trump, for instance, has ridiculously small hands (and we all know what that means -Rubio, 2016), and Bernie is a filthy communist.
1. What does "Independent voters" mean besides "not a part of either party" and votes?
2. She only got ~3 million more votes (highly skeptical of this number) with the entirety of the Democratic establishment on her side, that means ~40% of the party was in open disagreement with the entirety of leadership. I find her performance much worse than it should have been with such huge advantages. Think how many votes Bernie would get if leadership had said "Bernie's right, we're doing this wrong, let's support him instead" he would have crushed Hillary. Most people aren't Democrats so if he had party support combined with all the support he generated, he would already be over the magic number easy, not looking like he would not even get the required pledged delegates by the convention and would easily be the stronger general election candidate.
3. From when they announced Trump has gained support while Hillary has consistently been losing support.
4. She is weak on a lot against Trump. Just wait till he brings one of Bill's alleged victims on stage.
On April 28 2016 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Also, when did House Republicans take control of the FBI?
The current Director of the FBI is a Republican with a history/grudge against the Clintons.
...
In reality, the current director, despite political affiliation and past history, is known for being politically independent, and highly aggressive in pursuing investigations and I highly doubt the investigation itself is due to any political or personal biases, as opposed to simply pursuing any possible breach. Nonetheless if we're going to go with face value as some people in this thread are wont to do, the above should be enough to convince them it's partisan in nature, rite?
Nonetheless, the "scandal" surrounding this is fueled constantly by Fox News and the Republicans, and is routinely brought up by House and Senate Republicans whenever the FBI is brought up for a hearing, even on utterly unrelated topics, in order to generate headlines. At this point, it doesn't matter if the FBI concludes that this isn't worthy of an indictment recommendation to the Justice Department (which it in all likelihoods will), it's been blown so far out of proportion that it will still be used to negatively attack Hillary even in that case, or claim bias from the FBI/Obama protecting her, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Many supers (particularly the ones who want to keep their job) are open to the idea of supporting whoever their state picked. I'd note that Warren still hasn't endorsed (along with hundreds of other supers) if this thing was over, she'd have all the supers and they would just call it. They obviously haven't endorsed her still for reasons that they haven't made clear.
And then you realize that Clinton has won 25 states to 18 Bernie states, and Clinton states have significantly more superdelegates than Bernie states because the latter are mostly low-population caucus states. And then you break it down by district, and Clinton wins because she overwhelmingly wins urban areas and superdelegates are overwhelmingly from those districts because Dem vs. Republican demographics.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
Well those are objective facts (as much as all polls can be anyway), no matter who says them, so Hillary supporters can dismiss them at their own peril.
So polls are objective facts when they suit your argument, but when they're shitting on Bernie you don't care about them. But you're a bastion of objectivity so I'll just take you at your word.
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I suggested being true or just being critical of my objectivity?
On April 28 2016 03:49 Lord Tolkien wrote: [quote] Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
Well those are objective facts (as much as all polls can be anyway), no matter who says them, so Hillary supporters can dismiss them at their own peril.
So polls are objective facts when they suit your argument, but when they're shitting on Bernie you don't care about them. But you're a bastion of objectivity so I'll just take you at your word.
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I suggested being true or just being critical of my objectivity?
There is no question of your nonexistent objectivity.
On April 28 2016 03:49 Lord Tolkien wrote: [quote] Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
Well those are objective facts (as much as all polls can be anyway), no matter who says them, so Hillary supporters can dismiss them at their own peril.
So polls are objective facts when they suit your argument, but when they're shitting on Bernie you don't care about them. But you're a bastion of objectivity so I'll just take you at your word.
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I suggested being true or just being critical of my objectivity?
I disagree with everything you said because you aren't objective. Anyone can cherry pick content that shows Hilary in a bad light if that person doesn't like Hilary. When you start your statements with anyone with any objectivity you lose all credibility.
If you had instead said something like I found these polls, linked their sources, and explained a position I'd still probably disagree with you, but I wouldn't immediately dismiss your claims as nonsense.
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
Well those are objective facts (as much as all polls can be anyway), no matter who says them, so Hillary supporters can dismiss them at their own peril.
So polls are objective facts when they suit your argument, but when they're shitting on Bernie you don't care about them. But you're a bastion of objectivity so I'll just take you at your word.
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I suggested being true or just being critical of my objectivity?
There is no question of your nonexistent objectivity.
I don't think anyone here can lay claim to being objective. So I don't really see the point in pointing out I can't either? If someone disagrees with the suggestion that Hillary is not liked or trusted by most Americans they are free to make that case, but no one seems to want to do that, they'd rather just attack the messenger.
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
Well those are objective facts (as much as all polls can be anyway), no matter who says them, so Hillary supporters can dismiss them at their own peril.
So polls are objective facts when they suit your argument, but when they're shitting on Bernie you don't care about them. But you're a bastion of objectivity so I'll just take you at your word.
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I suggested being true or just being critical of my objectivity?
I disagree with everything you said because you aren't objective. Anyone can cherry pick content that shows Hilary in a bad light if that person doesn't like Hilary.
Show us something that suggests otherwise. A simple google search will show you support for what I'm telling you. Otherwise your just disagreeing to disagree rather than basing it off of having any knowledge on the topic.
Favorability:
RCP Average Hillary Clinton 3/3 - 4/14 -- Favorable: 39.3 Unfavorable: 54.5 Net: -15.2
Voters in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia think Hillary Clinton is not honest or trustworthy. According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, a mere 34 percent of Colorado voters think she can be trusted; 62 percent do not. In Iowa, those numbers are 33 percent to 59; in Virginia, Clinton is underwater on trust, too, 39 percent to 55 percent.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
1. Define "independent" in terms more useful than "not registered with either party", because that ranges from tinfoil hat libertarians to raging communists, and we'll have a discussion.
2. Clearly the person who is losing the popular vote by 3million is the stronger general election candidate... at least, in Bernie's pink unicorn lalaland. Is Clinton going to have a battle in the general election? Probably. However, given the votes so far, I don't think there is much doubt that Clinton has a better chance than Bernie, if only because she has significantly broader support from her own base, and the center. Bernie has more support to the left, but there are simply fewer people on the left (as evidenced by the popular support lead).
3. What opposing trends? Clinton's performance throughout the election seems pretty stable. Unless curbstomping Bernie in PA is somehow a sign that she is losing support...
4. She is weak to attack ads about her trustworthiness. All candidates have weaknesses. Trump, for instance, has ridiculously small hands (and we all know what that means -Rubio, 2016), and Bernie is a filthy communist.
1. What does "Independent voters" mean besides "not a part of either party" and votes?
2. She only got ~3 million more votes (highly skeptical of this number) with the entirety of the Democratic establishment on her side, that means ~40% of the party was in open disagreement with the entirety of leadership. I find her performance much worse than it should have been with such huge advantages. Think how many votes Bernie would get if leadership had said "Bernie's right, we're doing this wrong, let's support him instead" he would have crushed Hillary. Most people aren't Democrats so if he had party support combined with all the support he generated, he would already be over the magic number easy, not looking like he would not even get the required pledged delegates by the convention and would easily be the stronger general election candidate.
3. From when they announced Trump has gained support while Hillary has consistently been losing support.
4. She is weak on a lot against Trump. Just wait till he brings one of Bill's alleged victims on stage.
1) It's not a homogenous group, so lumping them all together is nonsense. The "independent voters" most likely to vote for Bernie in Democrat primaries are more likely to be raging communists, and thus, if they decide to vote at all will never vote for Republicans. Clinton may not excite these people to come out to vote.
2) Speculation, your honor. Also, sore loser syndrome. Fact is, she leads the popular vote, and the delegate count. There is no measure in which Bernie can claim to be winning this election. He has been wildly successful in spreading his message, though, which is fantastic.
3) Tall trees catch the most wind. When Hillary announced, she was expected to win by 70-80%. She is instead winning by 60%. When Trump announced he was expected to bomb out with at most 10%. He is instead around 40%. You are also comparing apples and oranges, because they are running in completely different primaries with completely different dynamics.
On April 28 2016 04:12 Gorsameth wrote: [quote] She isn't going to need supers to win. You realize she is ahead on normal delegates by a lot right?
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
Well those are objective facts (as much as all polls can be anyway), no matter who says them, so Hillary supporters can dismiss them at their own peril.
So polls are objective facts when they suit your argument, but when they're shitting on Bernie you don't care about them. But you're a bastion of objectivity so I'll just take you at your word.
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I suggested being true or just being critical of my objectivity?
There is no question of your nonexistent objectivity.
I don't think anyone here can lay claim to being objective. So I don't really see the point in pointing out I can't either? If someone disagrees with the suggestion that Hillary is not liked or trusted by most Americans they are free to make that case, but no one seems to want to do that, they'd rather just attack the messenger.
From personal experience, once someone starts throwing around words like “objective facts” they are making a pretty dubious argument to begin with. And the next page, you questioned the 3 million vote lead Clinton had as being “suspicious”. Because you don't like it.
So yeah, your entire arguments are based on you cherry picking the data you like to create a fantasy land where Sanders can contest the convention. We can't attack your arguments because they are not based in reality.
The proportion of Americans who say a religious day of rest is personally important to them has dropped to 50%, reflecting growing secularism over recent decades, according to a new poll.
A similar question asked in a 1978 survey showed 74% of respondents saying the Sabbath had personal religious significance.
The new poll also showed a big fall in those saying they attended weekly religious services, from 55% in 1978 to 27% now. Jews were least likely to attend services and Mormons were most likely.
The survey was carried out by YouGov on behalf of the Deseret News, a “family-oriented” news site based in Salt Lake City. It questioned 1,691 Americans across religious, racial, gender and age groups.
The poll found that more than six in 10 Americans agreed that it was important for society to have a day of the week set aside for spiritual rest. YouGov adjusted the day depending on the respondent’s religious affiliation: Sunday for Christians, Saturday for Jews and Friday for Muslims.
Young Americans – the so-called millennial generation – are the least likely to consider the Sabbath to have religious or spiritual meaning: 41% of those born in the run-up to the millennium said it was personally significant, compared to 58% of those born before 1945.
Helps explain why social conservatism is a dead idea. This is a big reason I think Trump is a blessing in disguise for the GOP. No matter how you look at it, the current model is toast. They need a new brand. Trump is at least a different brand.
How is religiosity "Social Conservatism?"
I had assumed social conservatism is => wanting a deregulation of social norms. In other words, keeping government out of the private/social space. Examples would be enforced separation of church and state but also no Civil Rights laws.
You aren't describing a functional coalition. There is no group of people who want principled social conservatism (see the election of Barry Goldwater). But there is a dwindling population of evangelical Christians who would vote their Values into Law that punishes others (see success of Bush2, but failure of Cruz). Values Voters have no limited government principles and seek unlimited enforcement of their interpretation of their own religion on other people. The Values Voters have nothing to do with limited government, principled social conservatism.
I guess the issue is that the term conservative is being used as pejorative and not a descriptor.
In my head:
Conservative: Wants as little government influence as possible to emphasize citizen rights Liberal: Wants government oversight to amend perceived/proven issues
Example: Fiscal conservatives wants less taxes while social liberals wants anti-discrimination laws
Democratic Platforms and Republican Platforms then amend these terms.
But I guess you're saying that's inaccurate?
I am more of a cynic. I think the "more government" and "less government" influence stuff is rubbish. The different parties and the different social groups want varying amounts of government in all different kinds of arenas, usually to their own benefits.
On the conservative side, any notion of the Republicans being a party of "limited government" dies when Trump wins the nomination. He openly calls for Muslim registries and mass deportations. And Cruz/Fiorina have adopted a post-truth crusade against reproductive choice. Maybe you could say Ron Paul was for limited government, but really he was just for those with capital making decisions for those without it.
On the liberal side, I think the theory of government intervention in the Obama/Hillary vein is that the government should intervene to restrict stronger parties and thereby allow weaker parties some degree of choice. Yes the government is intervening in saying cake shops need to sell to gays, but the gays have rights to shop in public as well. Yes the government is reducing your freedom to not buy health insurance, but this allows for the sick to have access at all to the health insurance system.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Wait what.
Are you seriously telling me you've bought the "superdelegates will choose Bernie, who has done nothing for the party after only recently switching, is a completely untested General Election candidate with glaring flaws, has not done almost any fundraising for down-ticket candidates, spent an entire campaign harassing them (the lists of superdelegate names/emails/addresses and were forwarded to Bernie supporters) and calling the system rigged, who lost both the popular and delegate votes, and has heavy shades of McGovern" argument?
If Bernie wants to win a majority of pledged delegates (and even have a distant prayer of winning super-delegates), he needs at least ~65% wins in every single race from now on.
Anything else is actually just delusional. Trump can still be denied a majority by a loss in Indiana (which will be the critical state for the Republican primaries). Hillary's actually won already, but we don't count superdelegates until the Convention so some people are (apparently) able to live in denial until then.
If they need superdelegates to make the decision it's a type of contested convention. Especially because most of her supers made their support public before the first race. She could win on the first ballot but I suspect the platform votes will be more contested.
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes. I don't have a lot of faith in their objectiveness, but I do believe they want to win more than anything else, and if by then Hillary has lost more ground to Trump while Bernie expands it, if Bernie wins California (especially by a decent margin), if the FBI interrupts the coronation, or any/all of those scenarios, it could happen where they may not automatically support Hillary, even if they previously said otherwise.
Although I've been certain that Hillary would be the nominee for quite some time, I'm happy that recent results have led most people who were still unsure she would be to acknowledge it will indeed be the case. I can also empathize with those who were really rooting for Sanders and have seen their last hopes he would clinch the nomination fizzle out with NY and yesterday night's results. It's never easy to see your preferred candidate lose, and I truly hope that many Sanders supporters will rally behind Hillary not only by default, but also because they'll discover that the candidate whom they used to dislike actually has much more to offer than they thought.
Hanging on to the hope that superdelegates will give Sanders the nomination, even though he'll be way behind Clinton both in pledged delegates and in the popular vote, is, however, utterly delusional -- for three reasons.
The first reason is that, as I said, it would mean going against both Clinton's majority in pledged delegates -- which is the metric through which Obama won in 2008 (even though he was behind in the popular vote -- only because he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan, however) --, and her overwhelming lead in the popular vote. There is absolutely no way superdelegates would proceed with a coup like that, going against the will of the voters. And even organizations who have endorsed Sanders, like MoveOn.org, have criticized the Sanders campaign for floating the idea. It's just not happening.
The second reason is the one which explains why superdelegates have already overwhelmingly chosen to support Clinton: she's been working with the Democratic party forever, and she's actively supported Democratic candidates at every level for years and in this very election. Sanders, meanwhile, only joined the Democratic party to make use of its resources for his presidential bid, he's done very little to support down-ballot candidates this election, and he's repeatedly criticized the party as "out-of-touch" and a "cocktail crowd", in this very election cycle (I won't even get into some of his previous statements). Yes, he's caucused with Democrats, and yes, he's worked with them throughout his career in Congress, but he has certainly not been a pillar of support like Hillary has -- far from it.
The third reason is, contrary to what you just implied, that Hillary is a significantly stronger general candidate election than Sanders. There is a reason why GOP operatives have actually been defending Sanders throughout the primary: they believe that he would be far easier to beat in the general election. Sanders and his supporters constantly point to polls showing he tends to fare better against Republican candidates than Hillary, but those polls cannot take into account the onslaught of GOP ads and propaganda on Sanders that would happen between his nomination and the election. He has countless weaknesses that have barely been touched upon in this primary, but on which Republicans would jump the instant he'd be nominated. He's a self-described socialist who spent his honeymoon in the USSR, praised communist regimes, defended bread lines against the American free market, praised the youth in Cuba and China while criticizing the youth in the US, he's apparently never had a steady job before he was 40, his only steady employment has been in government, he used to call himself "clearly anti-capitalistic", he declared he opposed charities (arguing he was in favor of government programs instead, but if you think the GOP will provide context you're delusional), he used to support a government takeover of commercial television stations, he attended a Sandinista rally in Nicaragua in which the crowd chanted “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die”, he used to write stories about women getting raped, etc. etc. I am genuinely having a hard time picturing a candidate the GOP would love to run against more. I know that many of Sanders' policy goals are indeed popular in the US population, but his means to get there are not necessarily (his tax increases would apply to more than the "millionaires and the billionaires"), and the GOP's attacks on him would destroy him. Most people love what is inside of the Affordable care act, but how it was branded by the GOP made it unpopular. And the ACA isn't even socialist. Having Sanders as a candidate would likely significantly hurt the Democrats' chances, both with regards to the White House and in down-ballot races, as many political scientists have argued. He is seen as quite far to the left (and that perception would be magnified tenfold by GOP attacks), and general election voters tend to vote to a considerable extent for people they see as ideologically close to them. And this is all image -- I'm not even getting into his inability to defend the practicality of his platform. He's pretty much only been pushed on this by the NY Daily News, and he crumbled when faced with basic questions on his own plans.
Clinton, meanwhile, has already faced every single attack the GOP can think to dig up on her, and she's still standing. Are her unfavorables higher than Sanders'? Sure, precisely because she's been a GOP target for decades while Sanders has been completely spared. And that's why with the party uniting behind her, her favorable/unfavorable rating will go up instead of down -- GOP attacks will be nothing new, while she'll be able to respond to those attacks on the national stage, and make her case with Obama, Bill, Warren, and hopefully Sanders, defending her. I'm not saying it'll be a cakewalk, but she's much better suited to deal with GOP smears, and attract moderate voters, than Sanders is.
So, to sum up: there is no way in hell that superdelegates overturn Clinton's leads in pledged delegates and popular vote. Clinton may not get to 2,384 votes through pledged delegates only, but that's meaningless - Obama didn't either, and she'll have crushing majorities in pledged delegates and the popular vote. Superdelegates won't switch to Sanders.
On April 28 2016 04:16 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Yes but if you look at upcoming contests she would need to win big to be able to get to the magic number, she doesn't have the leads she needs in polling and Trump needs a smaller percentage (and has the leads) of the remaining delegates to get to his number than Hillary needs to get hers. Of course they are framed in totally different ways by the media though, so if that's what you're going off of, the confusion makes sense.
What do you define as the "magic number"?
Enough pledged delegates so that she doesn't need super support.
On April 28 2016 04:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
On April 28 2016 04:02 GreenHorizons wrote: any objective person
so obviously not you right?
Well on this no, but do you dispute that she does poorly with independents or that they have been on opposite trends, or that the majority of Americans don't like or trust her? Or is your suggestion that those things don't make her a weaker general election candidate?
Anything you said after any objective person is irrelevant when you're the biggest Bernie supporter on this board. Just quit while you're behind.
Well those are objective facts (as much as all polls can be anyway), no matter who says them, so Hillary supporters can dismiss them at their own peril.
So polls are objective facts when they suit your argument, but when they're shitting on Bernie you don't care about them. But you're a bastion of objectivity so I'll just take you at your word.
Are you actually disagreeing with anything I suggested being true or just being critical of my objectivity?
There is no question of your nonexistent objectivity.
I don't think anyone here can lay claim to being objective. So I don't really see the point in pointing out I can't either? If someone disagrees with the suggestion that Hillary is not liked or trusted by most Americans they are free to make that case, but no one seems to want to do that, they'd rather just attack the messenger.
From personal experience, once someone starts throwing around words like “objective facts” they are making a pretty dubious argument to begin with. And the next page, you questioned the 3 million vote lead Clinton had as being “suspicious”. Because you don't like it.
So yeah, your entire arguments are based on you cherry picking the data you like to create a fantasy land where Sanders can contest the convention. We can't attack your arguments because they are not based in reality.
No I suspect the number because false numbers have already been used here and by her, I also suspect the number because at least 100k people didn't get to vote in NY and there have been many reports of similar incidents in many states. I know it's easier to dismiss my points as Bernie zealotry but I suspect a few months from now (if she gets it) you all will be blaming Bernie and people like me for her struggling in the general, ignoring that we made these points before you all forced her down our throats.
On April 28 2016 02:40 amazingxkcd wrote: Trump's foreign policy speech was pure and utter bliss.
Explain.
I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed about that speech, the speechwriters or Trump himself. Even if you look beyond the jarring shifts between college-level rhetoric and fourth grade level rhetoric, the blatant hypocrisy throughout, combined with a lack of details is pathetic at best and dangerous at worst.
There's literally so much wrong with it that it will take a paper to explain it all. Suffice to say that his core two points, That we need to have better relationships with our allies and also the fact that they have to treat us better "or else", is contradictory.
On top of that, How do people continue to take Serious b******* arguments like "I will do it to the best trust me."
You clearly have not watched the speech and are only parroting buzzwords, he gave a clear set of goals and explained how to get to the finish line. Pay attention, it regards your grievances:
"After I’m elected president, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges. For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure, grown out of the Cold War to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism."
Nowhere in his speech does he make threats to American satellite states, rather calls for more active participation in solving common problems. He doesn't have anyone write his speeches and he doesn't use a teleprompter like Obama. I think if he becomes president history will remember this speech by its defining sentence:
”We will no longer surrender out country or its people to the false song of globalism”
This is a monumental shift in American foreign policy and you should be paying attention instead of listening to Reddit tier quasi-political commentators.
I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed about that speech, the speechwriters or Trump himself. Even if you look beyond the jarring shifts between college-level rhetoric and fourth grade level rhetoric, the blatant hypocrisy throughout, combined with a lack of details is pathetic at best and dangerous at worst.
There's literally so much wrong with it that it will take a paper to explain it all. Suffice to say that his core two points, That we need to have better relationships with our allies and also the fact that they have to treat us better "or else", is contradictory.
On top of that, How do people continue to take Serious b******* arguments like "I will do it to the best trust me."
You clearly have not watched the speech and are only parroting buzzwords, he gave a clear set of goals and explained how to get to the finish line. Pay attention, it regards your grievances:
"After I’m elected president, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges. For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure, grown out of the Cold War to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism."
Nowhere in his speech does he make threats to American satellite states, rather calls for more active participation in solving common problems. He doesn't have anyone write his speeches and he doesn't use a teleprompter like Obama. I think if he becomes president history will remember this speech by its defining sentence:
”We will no longer surrender out country or its people to the false song of globalism”
This is a monumental shift in American foreign policy and you should be paying attention instead of listening to Reddit tier quasi-political commentators.
I think that's all true except for the teleprompter. He was obviously reading from prompters to the left and right.
On April 28 2016 04:52 GreenHorizons wrote: There now you can not believe RCP instead, or just admit it was a dumb thing not to believe when I said it.
I don't doubt that the polls exist. I doubt your conclusions of the facts you present, specifically:
I think any objective person looking at her numbers with independents, her unfavorability numbers, and her not trustworthy numbers and that her and Trump have been on opposite trends would conclude she is not the stronger of the two potential nominees in the general electorate's eyes.
This statement invalidates any point you might have had regardless of what it was.
So I'd question how important favorable ratings are in winning the general election. If you believe that the person who has better favorable ratings will win then it doesn't really matter who the Democrats put up because he or she will crush Trump. The jump from this poll paints Hilary negatively to Bernie is better candidate is what nobody agrees with.
When you started the argument with anyone objective will agree with my pro Bernie nonsense everyone jumped down your throat for a reason and it wasn't because we didn't think the poll existed.
If you would like some reasons that Hilary is a superior candidate feel free to reread this post
On April 28 2016 03:36 Introvert wrote: Cruz should have waited until after IN. Before looks too desperate (because it is). Before CA makes more sense, given Fiorina's connection to the state. I don't see how this helps on IN, and if he loses IN it's over anyway.
He already lost his identity when he pulled this Kasich disaster. He could not possibly be framing himself as "politician who is trying various things to somehow win" any more than he currently is.
And let's not forget the loser effect. We are going to see the same thing we saw in CT with Bernie. People just fucking sad about the whole thing and losing hope. It takes a lot more...courage(?) to vote for someone when they are a huuuuuge underdog. Seeing Trump hit multiple 60%'s in states in the week before IN is just...damning, IMO.
Cruz tries calling in Kasich --> gets sub-20% votes in 5 states --> tries calling Fiorina --> hopes for better? There is just such a massive loss in perceived strength by doing that. People want to rally behind someone strong. These recent stunts eliminated any perceived strength Cruz may have once had.
On April 28 2016 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote: On how it ends up a brokered convention, neither candidate gets the pledged delegates needed and they make a case to the super delegates that Hillary has little to no support among independents and is not liked or trusted by a majority of Americans. So if they nominate her, instead of watching her lose a 60 point national lead to Bernie, they'll see her lose her small 10-15% lead she has over Trump after months of him pointing out any and all of her flaws with no mercy.
Hillary need something like 60% of pledged delegates left to clinch and she's unlikely to win much from here on out. Cali was tied in the last poll I saw also.
As it stands now, Trump is more likely to clinch than Hillary.
Honestly, this is just weird to read. Things keep going so wildly differently from what you predict. I really think you need to step back for a moment and look at the situation. It's like you are actually viewing different numbers next to each state. How many delegates do you think Bernie and Clinton each have right now?
Thr situation is perilous, but you are framing what happened with Kasich incorrectly.
I do think the biggest danger for Cruz is discouragement of supporters. I suppose that might be one of the reasons for this announcement today. Fiorina has been an effective surrogate, esp in places like WI.
I read it as an "all-in" on the abortion issue. Fiorina lied and lied and lied about the Planned Parenthood videos, even after confronted with the truth. Her commitment to the cause was never rattled by the facts. That kind of post-truth thinking may help in Indiana. Not sure Cali Republicans are ready to swallow that though.
Ca gop voters already got tricked once by a celeb gov. But there was a recent news story about surging registration, much of which is prob for Trump (on gop side) this is what concerns me now. Ca repubs are not Texas ones, true. But they aren't NY ones either. At least they weren't.
I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed about that speech, the speechwriters or Trump himself. Even if you look beyond the jarring shifts between college-level rhetoric and fourth grade level rhetoric, the blatant hypocrisy throughout, combined with a lack of details is pathetic at best and dangerous at worst.
There's literally so much wrong with it that it will take a paper to explain it all. Suffice to say that his core two points, That we need to have better relationships with our allies and also the fact that they have to treat us better "or else", is contradictory.
On top of that, How do people continue to take Serious b******* arguments like "I will do it to the best trust me."
You clearly have not watched the speech and are only parroting buzzwords, he gave a clear set of goals and explained how to get to the finish line. Pay attention, it regards your grievances:
"After I’m elected president, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges. For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure, grown out of the Cold War to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism."
Nowhere in his speech does he make threats to American satellite states, rather calls for more active participation in solving common problems. He doesn't have anyone write his speeches and he doesn't use a teleprompter like Obama. I think if he becomes president history will remember this speech by its defining sentence:
”We will no longer surrender out country or its people to the false song of globalism”
This is a monumental shift in American foreign policy and you should be paying attention instead of listening to Reddit tier quasi-political commentators.
I think that's all true except for the teleprompter. He was obviously reading from prompters to the left and right.
Oh, I just googled it and yeah it seems his aides said he would use a teleprompter to help keep him on point. Still, first time I've ever heard he used one.
edit: I think he saves it for the really important policy speeches
I'm not sure who should be more embarrassed about that speech, the speechwriters or Trump himself. Even if you look beyond the jarring shifts between college-level rhetoric and fourth grade level rhetoric, the blatant hypocrisy throughout, combined with a lack of details is pathetic at best and dangerous at worst.
There's literally so much wrong with it that it will take a paper to explain it all. Suffice to say that his core two points, That we need to have better relationships with our allies and also the fact that they have to treat us better "or else", is contradictory.
On top of that, How do people continue to take Serious b******* arguments like "I will do it to the best trust me."
You clearly have not watched the speech and are only parroting buzzwords, he gave a clear set of goals and explained how to get to the finish line. Pay attention, it regards your grievances:
"After I’m elected president, I will also call for a summit with our NATO allies and a separate summit with our Asian allies. In these summits, we will not only discuss a rebalancing of financial commitments, but take a fresh look at how we can adopt new strategies for tackling our common challenges. For instance, we will discuss how we can upgrade NATO’s outdated mission and structure, grown out of the Cold War to confront our shared challenges, including migration and Islamic terrorism."
Nowhere in his speech does he make threats to American satellite states, rather calls for more active participation in solving common problems. He doesn't have anyone write his speeches and he doesn't use a teleprompter like Obama. I think if he becomes president history will remember this speech by its defining sentence:
”We will no longer surrender out country or its people to the false song of globalism”
This is a monumental shift in American foreign policy and you should be paying attention instead of listening to Reddit tier quasi-political commentators.
Typical Trump supporter making up facts as they see fit. I suffered through that entire garbage speech and never in my life had gone to Reddit. Will address the problems with his speech and your post in more detail when I get home.
For funsies though I will start by saying you think he actually wrote his own speech. We openly know he has hired speechwriters. You could also see him with a teleprompter. How you can get such basic facts wrong astonishes me.
EPT
