Author Topic: 2016 Presidential (Read 471445 times)

ppulatie · « **Reply #450 on:** October 13, 2015, 12:23:14 PM »

On other matters...the new Fox Poll with head to head match ups for CD's review....

In a head-to-head match-up

Carly Fiorina beats Hillary 42% – 39%

Jeb Bush wins by 44% to 40%

Donald Trump is up +5%, 45% to 40%.

Carson, who wallops Hillary by +11%, 50% to 39%.

Last month Hillary beat Trump 46% to 42%. That’s a +9 point jump for the Republican frontrunner. Bush has gained +2 points since September.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/10/13/epic-media-fail-trump-carson-hold-sizable-leads-over-hillary-clinton/

ppulatie · « **Reply #451 on:** October 13, 2015, 12:35:47 PM »

In another matter, North Carolina has changed how the delegates get split up in the Primary.

13 congressional districts = 39 delegates, 30 state delegates totaling 69 (+ 3 party delegates):

This was how it was before the change......and after the change.....

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/proportion-4-changed-rules.jpg?w=640

It is easy to see how the manipulation helps those candidates who have less actual vote totals. Also notice how Fiorina and Carson are effected. As the delegate count changes to the worse, money dries up and does not allow for full continued operations.

The key points still remain

1. Win 8 primaries to get placed into nomination.
2. Prevent others from winning 8 primaries so as to have their delegates "freed" and allowed to vote for whom they desire.
3. Primary goal......STOP TRUMP from getting 8 wins.
4. If Trump gets 8 wins, then work to get the "loser" delegates to support the non Trump 8 wins candidate.

Here is the question.........what happens if Trump is the only person to get 8 wins? Will the GOPe support him, or float a 3rd party candidate? Can the GOPe put a rule into place to deny Trump the nomination? If they can then what happens to the Trump supporters?

ppulatie · « **Reply #452 on:** October 13, 2015, 06:12:27 PM »

Dem debate....this is worse than painful..........at least Anderson is being a bit aggressive.

First time listening to Sanders....yawn.

Malley boring.....

Chaffee a "blockhead" of granite.....

Webb......fell asleep.....

Hillary, when does she get hit by lightening?

G M · « **Reply #453 on:** October 13, 2015, 06:36:31 PM »

Quote from: ppulatie on October 13, 2015, 06:12:27 PM

Dem debate....this is worse than painful..........at least Anderson is being a bit aggressive.

First time listening to Sanders....yawn.

Malley boring.....

Chaffee a "blockhead" of granite.....

Webb......fell asleep.....

Hillary, when does she get hit by lightening?

Did Anderson advise viewers of his connexrions to the crime family ?

ppulatie · « **Reply #454 on:** October 13, 2015, 07:12:43 PM »

No. And neither did Hillary. (hic)

Biden will jump in after this fiasco. (hic)

I think I am going to be sick. I had a drinking game..........every time Hillary lied, I would take a drink of Johnny Walker......working on second case now.

DougMacG · « **Reply #455 on:** October 13, 2015, 07:21:02 PM »

Nearly over, I have been listening on the radio. PP and others, please tell more about how these people look on stage. What was the lightening comment, her attitude or look?

Johnny Walker probably would have been a good idea for dealing with this.

ppulatie · « **Reply #456 on:** October 13, 2015, 07:33:31 PM »

Oh my........Hillary just made a plea for first woman president being a good thing.

Chaffee looks like he forgot his dentures. Comes off looking very bad.

Webb has a shirt collar too tight which makes him look weird.

Sanders is very animated. I think that he will be deemed the winner.

O'Malley comes off looking good, but is certainly to the left.

Hillary is wearing a tent. She is trying to tone down her voice and seem less shrill. The lightening comment was when she was asked about the emails and she went into her canned response that it was all allowed and she has been totally transparent. Also with the Bengazi questions.

Sanders wants to give everyone healthcare, even illegals, and also free college to all. Good part avoid foreign entanglements.

Webb said no to a no fly zone, contradicting others.

The crowd is totally Hillary driven..............

ppulatie · « **Reply #457 on:** October 13, 2015, 07:35:04 PM »

Hillary just said that she is an outsider as being the first woman president. Then she contradicts herself by talking about her experience.

DougMacG · « **Reply #458 on:** October 13, 2015, 08:02:52 PM »

Some observations overlapping pp's:

The debate quickly turned to foreign policy, not exactly a Dem strong point. Makes Jim Webb sound relevant. Hillary is a bigger hawk than at least one Republican running. No one could make a coherent defense of the Obama years.

The moderator is doing a far better job than expected. Some good questions. Some good followups. Pretty much sticking to relevant topics.
The crowd sounds like hired shriekers for Hillary. Some for Bernie as well.

Bernie's agenda and all the other 'progressive' ideas need to be rebutted before they take root any deeper with young people. I have been pushing hard for that over on another thread.

So many lies, so much misleading, so many mischaracterizations. So many misdiagnoses of what is going wrong.

For the first time I can say that Hillary is running. (ccp and I had a bet on that.) She sounds far better in this setting than other settings where she kept flopping. The veracity of her very confident sounding answers needs to be confronted.

Jim Webb: 'I am a strong supporter of nuclear energy. It is safe. It is clean.'
He sounds like the adult in the room. If they nominated him, they might actually win.
(I miss having Bigdog participate in these discussions.)

Hillary seems desperate to run with President Obama's support, very careful not to split with him. Maybe it is her defense against Biden but also she needs to use his power of incumbency.

Nice closing by O'Malley, pulling Democrats together.

Looking back to the beginning, what was the visual when Cooper asked who else can say they are not a capitalist?
No one mentioned that free market capitalism brought more people out of poverty, famine and every other malady that any other system in the history of the planet.

Game on!

ppulatie · « **Reply #459 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:07:18 AM »

After digesting the "debate" overnight, I have changed my mind on somethings.

1. Hillary won and providing the emails don't nail her, she will be the nominee.

2. Biden is going to wait a bit more before making a decision. He needed a TKO with Hillary and that did not occur.

3. Anderson was asking Hillary questions designed to inoculate her from future attacks by opposition. This is evidenced by the lack of real follow up questions.

4. Sanders cannot win against Hillary.

5. The GOPe candidate cannot win against Hillary. Rubio/Bush will fail unless they give away the country. Cruz is too conservative. Carson is too nice and low key. He will get eaten up. Fiorina does not have any lasting power.

6. Trump is the only hope because it will take a populist candidate to win. But the GOPe is going to stop him from being the nominee as I have outlined previously.

Expect either Hillary or Biden to be the next president. After all, buying the election is the american way.

DougMacG · « **Reply #460 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:19:29 AM »

As I listened on the radio I was curious what others were seeing that might leave a different impression. Now that I read the media and pundit reports I find out it was ALL about how they looked on stage. Clinton won by all accounts because she looked self-assured on stage.

I would seem to me that whoever won, to each viewer, would depend on the CONTENT of what they said, whether it was right or wrong, persuasive or unpersuasive, in the view of that voter.

It makes me wonder if there will even be a debate on the issues in the general election or if it will all be determined based on style - in the age of Obama.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the issues of POLICY coming out of the Dem debate that need to be addressed by the Republicans - and is anyone doing that?

Trump live tweeted the debate, also hit mostly on style.

Rubio, I see now, had a debate bingo game going that rivaled pp's drinking game. Players needed to listen for these 16 events to happen:

Praises Planned Parenthood - Did they skip that?

Violates religious liberties -

Praises Obama - They praised him only in the context of needing to go further

Supports Obamacare - Did they skip O's greatest accomplishment?

Host mentions private server - Didn't come up? Consensus that they don't want to talk about the damn emails.

Blames free enterprise - Hillary, we needed to save capitalism from itself. Bernie: capitalism is casino gambling.

Increasing federal spending: - At every turn, on every issue.

Blames Republicans - Yes. Everything is still Bush's, from the economy to foreign policy. Bush screwed up Centerfield so badly no one can play it.

Attacks FoxNews

Higher energy costs - Unspoken result of all their energy policies

Panders to Unions - Have they lost their clout?

Proposes higher taxes - All the time! The freeloading rich. It never came up that they already repealed Bush's tax rate cuts on the rich and added two dozen more layers of taxes.

Blasts GOP donors - REally not much about Republicans except them blocking the agenda.

Commentator mentions Clinton Foundation - Didn't come up!

Someone mentions Benghazi - Webb specifically said he wasn't talking about that; he was opposing the Libyan intervention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a DEMe conspiracy that these people are all up there specifically to make H look better, play to her strengths, ignore her weaknesses?

If you wanted to win, wouldn't you try to bring the fropntrunmner down a notch?

Webb didn't follow the script, actually opposed her record as Sec of State, was kept out of the conversation as much as the moderator could.

Watch for 3 of them to disappear off the stage for the next event.
________________________________________________

PP:
"1. Hillary won and providing the emails don't nail her, she will be the nominee.
2. Biden is going to wait a bit more before making a decision. He needed a TKO with Hillary and that did not occur.
3. Anderson was asking Hillary questions designed to inoculate her from future attacks by opposition. This is evidenced by the lack of real follow up questions.
4. Sanders cannot win against Hillary."

I agree with you up to this point. )

G M · « **Reply #461 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:50:58 AM »

I heard it was worth watching because of the sexual tension between Bernie and Anderson Cooper.

ppulatie · « **Reply #462 on:** October 14, 2015, 08:00:00 AM »

I am actually quite depressed this morning after listening last night. I am very glad that I will likely not be alive 20 years from now so I won't be able to see what has become of the country.

Last night was pure socialism on display. The true contenders worship at the alter of Marx and it showed. The media is fully in the tank for Her Highness (HH). They agree fully with her positions and will not do anything to prevent HH from being elected. The DEMe definitely exists to fully promote HH in her quest. Debbie Wasserman Schultz will do anything necessary, and in public, to ensure HH wins.

It is my belief that whether it is HH or the GOPe, the Cold War is back on. In fact, I expect to see that there will be at least one plane shot down in Syria, rapidly escalating tensions with Russia.

As long as politicians can spend other people's money and give it to their supporters, truly bought and paid for, the US cannot continue to exist as a viable country.

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #463 on:** October 14, 2015, 08:52:00 AM »

Hillary will be the nominee.

Webb reminded me of my father's era, when the Dem party was full of honorable Dems like him.

DougMacG · « **Reply #464 on:** October 14, 2015, 09:10:24 AM »

PP: As long as politicians can spend other people's money and give it to their supporters, truly bought and paid for, the US cannot continue to exist as a viable country.

That's right and that view will prevail unless confronted with its shortcomings and unless the voters are seriously offered a better vision.

The time to be depressed about losing this election is Wed morning, Nov 9 of next year, not in the early minutes of the first quarter.

CD: Hillary will be the nominee. - Yes. I now owe ccp dinner and lunch on my failed predictions while we fight over breakfast.

Webb reminded me of my father's era, when the Dem party was full of honorable Dems like him.

- That's right. Webb is a Democrat but has some nice qualities and relatively honest positions on the issues. You would think a number of pragmatic Dems and non-Republican independents would jump on his campaign as an alternative to Bernie Socialist and the return of Clinton crime and corruption. He is no flake, was Secretary of the Navy, is right about China, and he defeated a rising, prominent, incumbent Republican to win his swing state of Virginia Senate seat. By electing to not run for a second term, he is the closest of the bunch to being a true outsider, certainly outside the DEMe, while having served on the inside enough to know his way around. He is the Dem that R's would have the hardest time running against. Too bad no Dems can see that.

ccp · « **Reply #465 on:** October 14, 2015, 10:33:11 AM »

"For the first time I can say that Hillary is running. (ccp and I had a bet on that.) She sounds far better in this setting than other settings where she kept flopping."

Does anyone think for one second she didn't know the questions in advance?

Yep there certainly WAS a conspiracy to inoculate Hilliary from the illegal activity with the emails much less cover-up of Benghazi.

For Sanders to stand there and with a straight face tell us lying, integrity, illegal activity is NOT important to be concerned with for someone to be the leading role model of this nation is sickening. They are "f" pigs.

Vasserman Schultz with her great big smile. The party knows she is their only hope so naturally lying, breaking multiple laws, and the rest just is going to be ignored.

I am sure the disgusting circus of Clinton talking about someone else jeopardizing our national security. Or her comments about others on the stage changing their positions and there was more that I must have blocked out of my mind.

"I now owe ccp dinner and lunch on my failed predictions while we fight over breakfast"

This is the first bet I (so far) have ever one that I am disgusted about!

"Webb reminded me of my father's era, when the Dem party was full of honorable Dems like him."

I have read part of Joe Califano's bioptic as LBJ's aid while he was the President. There were some of the same games the Dems play now in his politics but nothing as dishonest and communist as now.

I don't think he would have opened up the borders to hordes of tens of millions of foreigners who don't love America like today. And the thought that he would refuse to call out radical Islamist (like the communist we have today) is simply impossible to imagine.

G M · « **Reply #466 on:** October 14, 2015, 10:42:40 AM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/359520.php

Worth reading.

ppulatie · « **Reply #467 on:** October 14, 2015, 11:06:56 AM »

Looks like Ace has our same feelings.

As to being depressed about this, when you have an ineffective offense, and a group of candidates who are too PC, it does not matter whether it is the opening minutes or the final two minutes. The GOPe is going to lose.

DougMacG · « **Reply #468 on:** October 14, 2015, 01:13:36 PM »

CCP: "Does anyone think for one second she didn't know the questions in advance?
Yep there certainly WAS a conspiracy to inoculate Hilliary from the illegal activity with the emails much less cover-up of Benghazi."

PP previously: "Anderson was asking Hillary questions designed to inoculate her from future attacks by opposition. This is evidenced by the lack of real follow up questions."

And inoculating him, the phony questioner. The format of it stuck in my mind. Cooper asked her the tough question that everyone knew he had to ask. She spoke for a minute but failed to answer it. Then he asked ONE tough followup telling her she didn't answer it. And she failed to address it again, and it was dropped it as if it had been asked and answered or that any further pursuit would be seen as bullying. She seemed to know she would face that exact sequence on those two issues, email server and changing positions (TPP etc.). When no opponent picked up on it, it was over. Not because she addressed it but because she had no opponent or real questioner. Less scripted, Bernie looked to be blindsided on guns and Chaffee destroyed on Glass Steagall (banking law).

There was no debate except on a couple of side issues with side candidates. It was just a series of interviews.

ppulatie · « **Reply #469 on:** October 14, 2015, 01:36:31 PM »

If you look at this from a DEMe perspective, this "debate" accomplished exactly what the DEMe wanted to do. It essentially eliminated the three dwarfs. It also pretty much eliminated the Sanders push, especially when he blew off the email issue.

This also put a crimp into Biden's plans. He was hoping for a TKO that did not occur. So it now is incumbent upon what the next polls read to determine what he does. Look to see if Hillary still retains an edge against the GOP candidates one on one. If she drops further and it can be perceived a result of the debate, then Biden will run. If HH actually picks up support and looks better, Biden will let it go and leave it to HH.

(This is more fun than a 10k word article I am doing now on HAMP.)

ppulatie · « **Reply #470 on:** October 14, 2015, 05:38:01 PM »

Here is a release from CNN on the most recent release of polling data for Nevada and South Carolina. Trump is leading big in each.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/285056152/ORC-South-Carolina-and-Nevada-Republican-Polls-October-14-2015

Here are the states being covered so far.

Trump Leading Big
North Carolina
South Carolina
New Hampshire
Florida
Nevada
Connecticut
Virginia
Georgia

Trump Ahead
Ohio (Trump 23, Carson 18, Kasich 13, Cruz 11, Fiorina 10, Rubio 7)
Iowa (Trump 24, Carson 19, Fiorina 8, Cruz 6)
Texas (Trump 21, Cruz 16, Carson 12)

Carson Ahead
Louisiana

Toss Up
Pennsylvania (Trump 24, Carson 23, 3 different polls with Mercy and PPP showing race equal. Quinnipac showing Trump leading by 7)
California (Toss up with Trump 17, Carson 15, Fiorina 13, Rubio 10, Bush

Wisconsin ( Trump 16, Carson 14, Rubio 12)

Looking at the results so far, Trump has 8 states pretty much wrapped up and should have his name placed into nomination at the convention. No one else has a state at all, but Carson is fighting hard against Trump in 4 others.

The Road Map

Looking at things strategically, the only GOPe course right now is to take Trump out of the race in some way or another. There just simply no other option for the GOPe at this time. If Trump can not be taken out, then the options become very limited.

1. Keep Cruz, Carson and Fiorina in the race so as to pull from Trump. This assumes that Carson and Fiorina support comes more from Trump than other candidates. If not, then it hurts the GOPe by them remaining in. But even then, some of their support will go to Trump.

2. Get rid of the dwarfs and hope that their support will go to a main stream candidate.

3. Get Rubio in a position to pick up support from the dwarfs and Jeb. Hope that this can get Rubio into position to challenge Trump and win at least 8 primaries.

Key actions now are to attack Trump and re-position Rubio.

DougMacG · « **Reply #471 on:** October 14, 2015, 07:13:51 PM »

"Looking at the results so far, Trump has 8 states pretty much wrapped up ..."

... if the election were held today... but it wasn't.

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #472 on:** October 14, 2015, 08:43:51 PM »

Again, we must remember the difference between polls of Rep primary voters and of general election voters. The former gets one to the latter, but the latter determines who gets the White House.

ppulatie · « **Reply #473 on:** October 15, 2015, 08:00:43 AM »

"The Dark Side is strong with these two."

New Rutger's Poll has Trump in the 30's and both Carson and Rubio behind him in the single digits. So add New Jersey to the Trump column.

I believe that I was writing about getting the nomination and where things stand, not the actual election. And at this point, the nomination is the most important part. So the question becomes how Trump can be derailed. What has happened so far.

1. Fox tried desperately to take Trump out in the first debate. This failed miserably and proved that Trump had real appeal. His support increased to where he began to lead all other candidates.

2. CNN tried in the next debate, turning it into the moderators and the other candidates against Trump. The result was a bit of an increase in support for Snarly and a few others, but it was not enough to prove that anyone else other than Carson posed a threat. After a few days, the upward movement ceased.

3. The media then began to attack Trump continuously, especially Fox. Trump turned the tables against them by threatening to boycott Fox. Fox has now quit the incessant personal attacks, but they do take every opportunity to show the "worst polls" and provide airtime to the Rove anti Trump forces. Rick Lowry screwed this strategy up with his Snarly cut off Trump's balls comment.

3. The media then began to promote first Snarly and then Rubio as viable candidates against Trump. Snarly is now ignored and Rubio is not getting any real traction.

4. The next chance to TKO Trump is the CNBC debate later this month. The probable plan of attack will be to focus upon policy and try to make Trump look totally uninformed on policy matters. So far, this avenue has not worked in non-debate arenas so it remains to be seen what will happen in the debate.

After the debate, the only remaining avenue appears to be endless advertising buys attacking Trump. This will be the SUPER PACs engaging in this tactic. The Chamber of Commerce has dedicated up to $100m to go after Trump. The Koch Brothers will be next and who knows who else.

This raises the question of how Trump will respond to the adds and how the people who support him will react. Trump will commit his own money to advertising buys attacking the SUPER PACS. The Trump supporters will not be swayed. So the SUPER PAC buys will have to be aimed at trying to sway non Trump supporters of the non viable candidates to go for Rubio/Jeb or whoever.

This has to be done before the first primaries take place. Trump must be eliminated or else the first 4 primaries will establish his strength and prove him to be almost unstoppable up to Mar 15. After that, the strategy is to get one other candidate at least 8 primary wins to have another name placed into nomination. That way, "released delegates" can move to the other candidate to blunt Trump.

G M · « **Reply #474 on:** October 15, 2015, 08:04:35 AM »

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/10/photos-state-police-eject-black-lives-matter-latino-protesters-from-richmond-trump-rally/

ppulatie · « **Reply #475 on:** October 15, 2015, 08:16:44 AM »

Notice that it was a few protesters only. If this had been with a Sanders or Hillary event, they would have caved to the protesters. Instead, Trump simply says "That is Freedom of Speech" and then continues with his speech.

BTW, the video of the guy who it was claimed was spit upon appears inconclusive. There is no spittle seen and the protester did not appear to react. But what is known is that the protester admits to being from Lima. Can I seen his Green Card?

ccp · « **Reply #476 on:** October 15, 2015, 10:28:47 AM »

" But what is known is that the protester admits to being from Lima"

Could anyone imagine what would happen in Peru if an American did this?

objectivist1 · « **Reply #477 on:** October 15, 2015, 10:54:15 AM »

HISPANICS WON'T VOTE GOP

Why pandering to Latinos is a losing proposition for Republicans.

October 15, 2015 Ann Coulter

At the Democratic debate on Tuesday night, Sen. Bernie Sanders bragged about getting a "D-minus" from the National Rifle Association (which was also Lincoln Chafee's GPA in high school).

Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton attacked Sanders for having voted against an insane bill that would have held gun manufacturers and sellers legally liable for the behavior of anyone who uses one of their guns in a crime.

I would be open to such a law -- but only after we pass a law holding psychiatrists liable for crimes committed by their patients; lawyers for crimes committed by their clients; and sanctuary cities for crimes committed by the illegal immigrants they released in violation of federal law.

Gun dealers are a lot more careful about whom they sell guns to than psychiatrists, lawyers and sanctuary cities are about the criminals they loose on the public.

In several recent mass shootings, the psycho was at least temporarily delayed when gun shops refused to sell him guns -- such as the Colorado gun range owner who put his whole staff on red alert in case James Holmes ever wandered in, simply on the basis of having heard Holmes' strange voicemail message.

As Sanders himself once said, holding gun sellers liable for the crimes of their customers would be like holding "a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer." (As happened to Lincoln Chafee.)

To cheers from the Democratic audience, Hillary denounced Sanders for his vote against imposing unprecedented liability on gun makers, saying, "It's time the entire country stood up against the NRA."

Sanders bowed and scraped, finally saying he'd "take another look" at the gun bill.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley bragged about passing the strictest gun-control laws in the country (which explains why Baltimore is such a safe city). Asked which "enemy" he was proudest of, O'Malley said: "The NRA." (Loud applause -- especially from the radical Muslims in the audience!)

I gather Democrats have written off the gun vote.

Plenty of Democrats own firearms -- or at least have armed bodyguards, such as Rosie O'Donnell, Jim Carrey, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg.

But Democrats have made a calculated decision that they are not going to win a majority of gun owners, so they denounce them with abandon, making no concessions at all.

Why don't Republicans do that with the Hispanic vote? Somehow, the left has convinced the GOP to obsess over winning people who will never give us a majority of their votes, which is the exact opposite of the Democrats' strategy for themselves.

I would wager that Democrats get more votes from NRA members than Republicans do from La Raza members (0). But try to imagine a Republican answering the "enemies" question: "La Raza."

Republicans don't need to treat Hispanics with the contempt that Democrats treat gun-owners. We do not dislike Hispanics. We do not dislike any group.

We just have to protect Americans first -- American jobs, American taxes and American social programs being bankrupted by immigrants . Most voters don't think it's an outrageous imposition to ask people to obey our laws.

Donald Trump opened his campaign talking about Mexican rapists, pledged to build a wall and deport illegals -- and has soared to the top of the polls.

The massive Hispanic blowback consists of this: Trump is getting about the same percentage of the Hispanic vote as Romney did.

I have no doubt that the 73 percent of Hispanics who will be voting against Trump are prepared to be much angrier about it than the 73 percent who voted against Romney. But the result won't look any different on election night. Voting machines don't register angry glints in people's eyes.

On the other hand, by driving up the white vote -- to say nothing of the black vote -- we will see a difference in the Republicans' box score on election night.

The Holy Grail year for Republicans is supposed to be 2004, when President Bush won a record-breaking 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. He had to turn his entire White House into a Hispandering operation to do that -- and he still lost the Hispanic vote.

It's crazy to deform our whole platform in pursuit of some group that won't give us at least 51 percent of its vote, anyway. The Democrats ignore white voters and they were 73.7 percent of the electorate in 2012. Hispanics were only 8.4 percent that year.

I haven't seen an estimate of the electoral percentage of gun-owners, but with one-third to half of all Americans owning guns, it's a lot more than 8.4 percent.

Democrats know not to fritter time on constituencies they can't win, but have buffaloed Republicans into wasting resources on a quixotic bid to win a slightly larger -- but still losing -- percentage of the 8.4 percent of the electorate that is the Hispanic vote.

You've been conned, GOP. You are never going to beat the Democrats at sucking up to foreigners. And your conservative base will flee.

The GOP should expend precisely as much effort fawning over the Hispanic vote as Democrats do over the gun vote, the pro-life vote and the white vote.

Republicans have got to stop believing The New York Times line that the only honorable votes are from minorities. It's honorable to get votes from taxpayers, too.

DougMacG · « **Reply #478 on:** October 15, 2015, 12:37:53 PM »

One of my new friends is both gay and of Mexican descent by way of California. We talked politics for the first time yesterday. He kept saying he was Democrat, would end up voting for Hillary if she's the nominee. I kept saying we have a year left for me to change his mind. I told him I liked Rubio. He kept telling me Rubio is a fake-Hispanic, meaning he looks, talks (thinks) like a white guy, meaning he has no advantage over other R's pursuing Mexican and other Hispanics. We will see about that. Language at least gives him an opportunity to give it a try and the softer stance on immigration will be a benefit. As gay, he thinks R's will take his rights away, whatever that means., I told him they want to give him more rights - got a blank look back on that.

In another conversation with a black elderly woman tenant who has become a good friend, she said she is a Democrat. Pressed on that, I could only determine it was something hereditary, she was born that way and wouldn't re-examine it.

Nonetheless, we can't write off entire groups who are not benefiting from their monolithic vote for failure. We need to confront it and sell our alternative at every turn. Broken record, but it only takes a small change to start in each demographic group to win and change the direction of the country.

No we don't have to pander to do it. But we also can't ignore, exclude or forget about them. These are often the people who would benefit the most from an economic turnaround.

ccp · « **Reply #479 on:** October 15, 2015, 02:00:20 PM »

Doug,

For the vast majority of these people it is about the money.

They want the socialist welfare state.

They want the rest of us to pay for them.

They won't tell us that but that is it.

Don't you agree?

ppulatie · « **Reply #480 on:** October 15, 2015, 03:57:38 PM »

3rd Quarter Fundraising

Jeb Bush (Currently Polling 6% Reuters Average)
Raised: $13,384,832
Cash on hand: $10,271,229

Ben Carson (Currently Polling 20% Average)
Raised: About $20 million

Ted Cruz (Currently Polling 6% Average)
Raised: $12.2 million
Spent: $7.2 million
Cash on hand: $13.5 million.

Marco Rubio (Currently Polling 6.5% Average)
Raised: About $6 million
Cash on hand: $10,975,988.78

Carly Fiorina (Currently Polling 4.7% Average)
Raised: $6.8 million
Spent: $2.2 million
Cash on hand: $5.5 million

Chris Christie (Currently Polling 2.3% Average)
Raised: $4.2 million

Rand Paul (Currently Polling 3.1% Average)
Raised: $2.5 million
Cash on hand: $2 million

Bobby Jindal (Currently Polling .06% Average)
Raised: $579,438.39
Spent: $832,214.02
Cash on hand: $260,939.01

Donald Trump
Raised $3.9 million

The key is the burn rate. Apparently Carson has a heavy burn rate, as does Jeb. How much cash is needed monthly for a large organization and ground game in each state? Has to be at least $2.5m to stay in the game. We should expect the dwarfs to begin dropping out soon.

ppulatie · « **Reply #481 on:** October 15, 2015, 03:59:52 PM »

Trump and Carson both just told CNBC that if the debate is over 2 hours, commercials included, they would not participate. There goes the ratings...........

Watch CNBC panic.
Watch CNBC run.
Watch CNBC cave in.

DougMacG · « **Reply #482 on:** October 15, 2015, 09:51:23 PM »

Quote from: ccp on October 15, 2015, 02:00:20 PM

Doug,
For the vast majority of these people it is about the money.
They want the socialist welfare state.
They want the rest of us to pay for them.
They won't tell us that but that is it.
Don't you agree?

Naively, I still believe that if given the choice for their children and grandchildren, 51-54% would choose a dynamic, growing, flourishing, opportunity society with an adequate safety net, over collective poverty declining into ruin.

It's all about how you frame the (Nov 2016) push poll. Even with the premise presented that we want to put black people 'back in chains', castrate gay people, banish Latin people, take away Grandma's meds and steal everything produced for ourselves, still around 48% can see through the liberal BS.

G M · « **Reply #483 on:** October 16, 2015, 02:04:12 AM »

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/thatsbrilliant.jpg

ppulatie · « **Reply #484 on:** October 16, 2015, 07:19:37 AM »

Yep, CNBC caved into Trump. It will be 2 hours of debate.

Advertising had been sold at high rates based upon Trump appearing. Without Trump, CNBC would have had to drop rates and refund money.

G M · « **Reply #485 on:** October 16, 2015, 07:24:34 AM »

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/15/dems_revolution_already_is_here_128425.html

ccp · « **Reply #486 on:** October 16, 2015, 08:31:25 AM »

change "illegal" to "undocumented" to "dreamer"

change "global warming" to "climate change"

change "gun control" to "gun safety"

One can hear the damn liberal university schyster professor thinking to him/herself how smart he is by using the child psychology on us. Nothing more the simple propaganda and lies basically.

Unfortunately the libs control the airways and media so the overt propaganda is presented as fact and truth.

Yep we are screwed.

DougMacG · « **Reply #487 on:** October 16, 2015, 08:37:23 AM »

Quote from: ccp on October 16, 2015, 08:31:25 AM

change "illegal" to "undocumented" to "dreamer"

change "global warming" to "climate change"

change "gun control" to "gun safety"

One can hear the damn liberal university schyster professor thinking to him/herself how smart he is by using the child psychology on us. Nothing more the simple propaganda and lies basically.

Unfortunately the libs control the airways and media so the overt propaganda is presented as fact and truth.

Yep we are screwed.

And 'requires subsidy' now means: "affordable".

G M · « **Reply #488 on:** October 16, 2015, 09:20:32 AM »

http://neveryetmelted.com/2015/10/14/james-webbs-debate/

Choices.

DougMacG · « **Reply #489 on:** October 16, 2015, 09:49:37 AM »

Quote from: G M on October 16, 2015, 09:20:32 AM

http://neveryetmelted.com/2015/10/14/james-webbs-debate/

Choices.

Interesting situation Webb is in and strange that he has no followers. I used to fear the centric, reasonable sounding Dems, but now they are homeless.

ppulatie · « **Reply #490 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:16:35 AM »

Could it be that those centric and reasonable sounding Dems will go to Trump in the general election? Word is that he is getting significant Reagan Democrat support...

G M · « **Reply #491 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:19:41 AM »

Quote from: ppulatie on October 16, 2015, 10:16:35 AM

Could it be that those centric and reasonable sounding Dems will go to Trump in the general election? Word is that he is getting significant Reagan Democrat support...

The Free Shit Army is now the vast majority of dems. Reagan Democrats? Both of them are watching Matlock right now.

DougMacG · « **Reply #492 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:25:52 AM »

Quote from: ppulatie on October 16, 2015, 10:16:35 AM

Could it be that those centric and reasonable sounding Dems will go to Trump in the general election? Word is that he is getting significant Reagan Democrat support...

This could be, if there are any. It's hard to know where Trump is getting all his support from. I am limited to studying it here with a sample size of one. )

G M · « **Reply #493 on:** October 16, 2015, 10:32:20 AM »

Quote from: DougMacG on October 16, 2015, 10:25:52 AM

Quote from: ppulatie on October 16, 2015, 10:16:35 AM
Could it be that those centric and reasonable sounding Dems will go to Trump in the general election? Word is that he is getting significant Reagan Democrat support...

This could be, if there are any. It's hard to know where Trump is getting all his support from. I am limited to studying it here with a sample size of one. )

If you have access to any Moonies, Hari Krishnas or Obama fans that just woke up from a coma that started in late 2009, there are similar dynamics to observe. ; )

DougMacG · « **Reply #494 on:** October 16, 2015, 11:03:16 AM »

Here is Bernie, but the point is that they all basically agreed with him:

“I think most Americans understand that our country today faces a series of unprecedented crises,”... “The middle class of this country for the last 40 years has been disappearing. Millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, and yet almost all of the new income and wealth being created is going to the top one percent.”

Sanders always frames his complaint over a longer period than the Obama Presidency and neglects to mention that Democrats including Hillary and Obama controlled the domestic agenda in Washington via the Pelosi-Reid Congress for the two years before Obama took office. Still, what can be said of Obama economics and what should have been driven home in 2012 about President Obama and his economic agenda: he made it worse.

The answer according to everyone on the stage was - do more of everything that made it worse.

G M · « **Reply #495 on:** October 16, 2015, 11:06:40 AM »

He bases his position on all the places where marxism has worked, like....um....well....

Quote from: DougMacG on October 16, 2015, 11:03:16 AM

Here is Bernie, but the point is that they all basically agreed with him:

“I think most Americans understand that our country today faces a series of unprecedented crises,”... “The middle class of this country for the last 40 years has been disappearing. Millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, and yet almost all of the new income and wealth being created is going to the top one percent.”

Sanders always frames his complaint over a longer period than the Obama Presidency and neglects to mention that Democrats including Hillary and Obama controlled the domestic agenda in Washington via the Pelosi-Reid Congress for the two years before Obama took office. Still, what can be said of Obama economics and what should have been driven home in 2012 about President Obama and his economic agenda: he made it worse.

The answer according to everyone on the stage was - do more of everything that made it worse.

DougMacG · « **Reply #496 on:** October 16, 2015, 01:44:43 PM »

Quote from: G M on October 16, 2015, 11:06:40 AM

He bases his position on all the places where marxism has worked, like....um....well....

Was I the only one who took Bernie's wish for the USA to be more like Denmark to be racist?

The Danish population is extremely homogenous. As of 2000, 97 percent are Danes (ethnic Scandinavians), and the rest are Inuit (Eskimo), Faroese, and Germans.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Denmark.aspx

Bernie, America 2016 is not your grandfather's Vermont.

As in Sweden, the world's most generous safety net works (worked) only in a monolithic culture that includes a universal work ethic. In the less productive sectors in America, that went the way of the choomg gang. In Norway, oil revenues balance the equation. Let's drill offshore and in Alaska to copy the Scandinavians. In all of them, add in a dose of over run borders and the apple cart tips very easily on its side.

G M · « **Reply #497 on:** October 16, 2015, 01:56:47 PM »

Quote from: DougMacG on October 16, 2015, 01:44:43 PM

Quote from: G M on October 16, 2015, 11:06:40 AM
He bases his position on all the places where marxism has worked, like....um....well....

Was I the only one who took Bernie's wish for the USA to be more like Denmark to be racist?

The Danish population is extremely homogenous. As of 2000, 97 percent are Danes (ethnic Scandinavians), and the rest are Inuit (Eskimo), Faroese, and Germans.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Denmark.aspx

Bernie, America 2016 is not your grandfather's Vermont.

As in Sweden, the world's most generous safety net works (worked) only in a monolithic culture that includes a universal work ethic. In the less productive sectors in America, that went the way of the choomg gang. In Norway, oil revenues balance the equation. Let's drill offshore and in Alaska to copy the Scandinavians. In all of them, add in a dose of over run borders and the apple cart tips very easily on its side.

This Denmark?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/425544/somethings-awesome-state-denmark-kevin-d-williamson

G M · « **Reply #498 on:** October 17, 2015, 06:30:00 AM »

http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2015/10/Greek-Socialism-copy.jpg

ppulatie · « **Reply #499 on:** October 17, 2015, 04:29:33 PM »

I have mentioned several times about the GOPe strategy to get Bush nominated by using "splitter" candidates. These candidates are designed to solely draw off votes from non Bush candidates so that Bush could win with less than 25% of the vote.

Another strategy used by the GOPe involves changing the delegate awards in each primary. Now, some people who have been following changes to delegates in different states have found something of interest.

Virginia requires a candidate to get 5000 signatures from registered republicans in the state and of which 200 must be from each county in the state. Only Jeb and Trump are engaging in signature gathering activities.

This same thing is going on in Illinois, Wisconsin and Florida.

Iowa and New Hampshire have Jeb and Trump working hard on this, with Carson, Cruz and Fiorina doing some. Nevada is similar to Iowa in activities.

After the Feb primary states, the only signature gathering activity in states are from the Jeb team and Trump team.

What does this mean?

There are only a few weeks left for vote gathering in the early states, and only a bit longer for the March states. Why are Paul, Kasich, Rubio and the others not engaged in any such activity? One cannot do this in a weekend or two.

Why are the Jeb and Trump teams the only ones active in all the states? Why not Rubio, Carson, Cruz and Fiorina?

For Rubio, Carson, Cruz and Fiorina, it is likely the issue of money. They must get the "boost" from early primary wins to gather enough money in to move forward. (SUPER PACS cannot engage in this type of activity. It must be done from the campaigns.) With Paul, Kasich and the others, it is either ego or other political considerations.

Rubio may be counting on Jeb to drop out, especially since it seems that their "friendly relationship" is gone. If Jeb goes, then Rubio could get campaign donations to further build the state origanizations, but without this money, he cannot otherwise proceed.

This may also explain why Trump is only focused upon the Jeb campaign. Only Jeb has the funds to move forward, but even now, it appears that those donations are drying up, and with the Bush burn rate, there may not be even to continue moving forward either.

News:

Author Topic: 2016 Presidential (Read 471445 times)