Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471552 times)

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Establishment Finally Accepts Trump Could Win Nomination...
« Reply #500 on: October 19, 2015, 07:33:20 AM »
The Establishment Thinks the Unthinkable: Trump Could Win the Nomination

 ELIANA JOHNSON - National Review Online    October 19, 2015

It began as whispers in hushed corners: Could it ever happen? And now, just three months from the Iowa caucuses, members of the Republican establishment are starting to give voice to an increasingly common belief that Donald Trump, once dismissed as joke, a carnival barker, and a circus freak, might very well win the nomination.

“Trump is a serious player for the nomination at this time,” says Ed Rollins, who served as the national campaign director for Reagan’s 1984 reelection and as campaign chairman for Mike Huckabee in  2008. Rollins is not alone in his views.

“Trump has sustained a lead for longer than there are days left” before voting begins in Iowa, says Steve Schmidt, who managed John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. “For a long time,” Schmidt says, “you were talking to people in Washington, and there was a belief that there was an expiration date to this, as if there’s some secret group of people who have the ability to control the process.” But for Trump, a dip in the polls after the second debate that many predicted was the beginning of the end has arrested; and for nearly four months, he has remained at the top of the polls.

Now, long-time GOP strategists who were expecting Trump’s act to wear thin a couple of months ago worry that he can’t be stopped, or at least that he has a significant chance of winning the nomination.

It’s a drastic departure from the near-universal sentiment of the Republican establishment voiced when Trump announced his candidacy in June. In the weeks following his campaign launch, many Republicans fretted not that Trump would win the nomination, but that his incendiary remarks about illegal immigrants would irreparably harm the GOP brand. (The former Bush-administration press secretary Ari Fleischer compared Trump to a roadside accident. “Everybody pulls over to see the mess,” he told Politico in late June. “And the risk for the party is he tarnishes everybody.”) Now, many members of the GOP establishment are concerned less that Trump will hurt the brand than that he’ll become its standard-bearer.

“I know all of us dismissed Trump, early on, all of the so-called experts,” Fox News’s Chris Wallace said Sunday. “‘Summer fling,’ ‘momentary amusement.’” But Wallace, who interviewed Trump late last week and aired portions of the interview on his show Sunday, said he finds himself feeling differently now. “As I watched that interview and I heard what he had to say . . . I am beginning to believe he could be elected president of the United States,” he said.

Wallace was struck by the sheer force of Trump’s personality, but there are other reasons to think he has a real shot at the nomination. Poll after poll this election cycle has registered the distaste of Republican voters for political experience; they prefer an outsider with a fresh approach to a battle-tested veteran. For instance, the latest survey from the Pew Research Center, published in early October, shows that by more than a two-to-one margin, Republican and Republican-leaning voters prefer a candidate with new ideas to one with a proven record. That’s a change: Republicans have traditionally preferred governors to senators, for example, because they prized their executive experience. And Pew notes that this is a shift in attitude that coincided with Trump’s ascension. “Just five months ago,” the polling company writes, “GOP voters valued experience and a proven record over new ideas, 57 percent to 36 percent.”

Trump is not the only candidate who lacks political experience, and Pew’s findings help to explain why the retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson is surging in the polls as well. But Trump has done something they haven’t, something that now-former presidential candidate Scott Walker demonstrated is difficult to do — sustain the momentum he developed in the weeks after he launched his campaign.

Republican strategists say that momentum is key to notching wins in the early primary states, which themselves are essential to securing victories later on. “He has the potential to win Iowa and New Hampshire and more,” says Rollins. “No one seems to be developing to challenge him at this time.” “Momentum matters a great deal,” says Schmidt. “You have to win in the early states to win in the larger mega-state primaries that fold out over the balance of March and April.”

Skeptics remain. Stuart Stevens, who served as a senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, notes that Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire haven’t elected renegade candidates when they’ve had an opportunity to do so, as recently as last year. “I think a reasonable way to look at this is to look at who gets nominated for governor or Senate in these states,” Stevens says. In Iowa, the mustachioed Terry Branstad, whose political network is largely supportive of New Jersey governor Chris Christie, is the longest-serving governor in state history. In the 2014 Senate primary, Joni Ernst, then a state senator, beat back challenges from both the right and the left. New Hampshire elected the moderate Kelly Ayotte to the Senate in 2010. “So,” Stevens asks, “could Donald Trump win a nomination for the Senate or governor in Iowa or New Hampshire?” “Not in a million years.”

Then again, the early states have surprised before.

As Trump has become a more permanent fixture on the political scene, other questions linger. Can he vary his routine? Is he serious about building a ground game? Over the past few weeks, the Trump campaign has begun at least to hint that it is interested in rounding out the picture of its candidate. Trump’s four children opened up to People magazine about their father for an article published earlier this month; on the cover, Trump shared the spotlight with his wife and his youngest son, Barron. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and his son, Eric, have begun making television appearances on behalf of their father. (Showing that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, the younger Trump told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren last week: “Everything he touches turns to gold.”) Profiles of Trump’s wife, the former Melania Knauss, and of Ivanka, published in the New York Times and Politico magazine, respectively, have also provided glimpses of Trump the family man.

And while Trump is beginning to make traditional campaign expenditures and build a ground game in the early-voting states, he is spending less on these measures and undertaking them later than other campaigns, which have been putting the gears in motion for the past year or longer. Typically, in caucus states such as Iowa and Nevada, these sorts of political fundamentals matter. But Trump has already defied supposedly immutable laws of politics. Trump’s supporters will surely cheer the emerging consensus, but, as Trump would be the first to point out, the establishment has been wrong before. Right now, it might find consolation in that fact.

— Eliana Johnson is Washington bureau chief of National Review.



Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425750/gop-establishment-thinks-trump-could-win?target=topic&tid=1707
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, General election polling, Trump loses to Sanders by 9?
« Reply #501 on: October 19, 2015, 08:22:34 AM »
All disclaimers disclaimed, such as all sampling errors and that this is early, more than a year before the election etc.  Still, we look for trends and patterns as the candidates have now been running for a significant period of time.

CNN latest:
Clinton 50, Trump 45   
Carson 48, Clinton 47

Sanders 53, Trump 44   
Carson 48, Sanders 46

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

My take:
1. If Trump is the known and Carson is the unknown, people prefer the unknown to Trump. 

2. If people are following this somewhat closely, they are liking Bernie Sanders by 9 points over Trump and not just because he is Democrat, since Carson is beating Sanders.

3. Hillary, post debate, is still an injured candidate.  I took their Biden polling to be premature and unrealistic, he polls about 5 points better than Hillary, which to me means anyone but Hillary in the general election.  They just can't find anyone but Hillary.

4. If a Bumbling Biden can be leading (at the link) as he runs for Obama's third failing term, it is most crucial that Republicans choose their most persuasive, most articulate, most charismatic nominee bogged down with the least amount of baggage and distractions, that can reach people directly and reach into all the currently non-Republican demographic groups and pull out a few more votes than usual.  This is not a resume election; it is potentially a change of direction election.  You change direction in Washington by changing minds and votes out in the heartland.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #502 on: October 19, 2015, 08:30:17 AM »
I think a Trump-Carson ticket would be excellent.  Witness the fact that multiple black pastors in Atlanta of all places - have come out strongly in support of Trump.  This simply doesn't normally happen.  Trump IS reaching into traditionally non-Republican groups and garnering support.  Carson I think, understands the Islamic threat and ideology better than Trump, and this is important.  Trump needs to educate himself on Islam and sharia law.  He appears to be ignorant of the fact that both are diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #503 on: October 19, 2015, 08:54:41 AM »
And in all fairness to counter CNN, the Fox poll released on last Tuesday shows....

Trump 45, Clinton 40

Carson 50, Clinton 39

It does not show match ups with Sanders.....

What I look for in polling when Carson is up as to what part of the segment polled is evangelicals. The higher the evangelicals polled, the better Carson does. The internals really tell the story at the moment the poll is taken.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #504 on: October 19, 2015, 09:14:46 AM »
"What I look for in polling when Carson is up as to what part of the segment polled is evangelicals. The higher the evangelicals polled, the better Carson does."

This is a good point.  Also the general R or D bias in polling.  What we are looking for at this point is relative strength or weakness which seems consistent between the two polls.  Carson is polling stronger than Trump (or Bush) in general election matchups, and Rubio slightly ahead of Carson.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Who can win the general election will very quickly become a top criteria.  Trump has a good eye for getting out of a good investment before it tanks.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/donald-trump-2016-quit-business-deals-213264


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #505 on: October 19, 2015, 09:31:34 AM »
Ahhh, Political............is this reason #312 or 313 why Trump will bail out in the next few weeks?

Though Carson right now polls better in the general election than Trump, everything at this time also goes to who can win the nomination. At this point, Trump leads in all but two states where Carson is leading. The problem is how to derail Trump in the primaries. So far, nothing has worked. And unless Trump really screws up, there is little to indicate that anyone can derail him.

Can Carson work with both sides if he is elected president? Does he have the strength to push through his programs? Being a nice guy is not enough.

As to the other candidates......we have voted time and again for the "electable" candidate promoted by the GOPe. All are the old Rockefeller Republican style of politician. And what happens? Each time we are disappointed. The definition of insanity...............doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting the results to be different.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #506 on: October 19, 2015, 10:07:45 AM »
I don't see Ben Carson as the nominee or the President either.  Like Trump but in a different way, it is very interesting to see how well he is doing right now.

As an aside, not related to anyone else specifically, we have too many candidates to not have any scandals come out other than the drip, drip, drip of the Clinton Crime Family.  (Mrs. Rubio drives too fast?)

Yes it sounds cliche and yes we picked some bad ones lately, but we still want to nominate someone who is electable in the general election.  Looking back at HW Bush (without Reagan at his side), Bob Dole, McCain and Romney, or the partial success and partial failures of the W Bush administration doesn't change the fact that we need to nominate the best candidate who can win.

Trump is falling into Romney's trap.  He can't address major issues effectively or relate outside of his core group because of his own background and experience.  Romney could not tell you why free market capitalism works or why government is not the best provider of healthcare and Trump cannot tell you he doesn't favor the rich and powerful over the poor and powerless.

Cruz is the most pure, but not seen as the most electable.  JEB cannot reform the tax code without having them called the Bush tax cuts.  Carson will need more dynamism to get a word in edgewise with the wicked witch, although underestimated Carson has also been a losing proposition.  Nothing will be easy for Rubio either, especially if immigration conservatives don't get behind him, but all Dem advisers in private admit he is the candidate the Hillary team fears most.  Young, sharp, conveys a positive message (in 2 languages) and able to stand up to her and her failed record and policies on all issues.



"we have voted time and again for the "electable" candidate promoted by the GOPe. All are the old Rockefeller Republican style of politician."

What are the similarities between John McCain, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio?  None that I see.  Rubio was considered tea party on all issues, not Rockefeller on anything.  Then he strayed on immigration, learned and came back.  That learning experience I have argued will turn into a strength in the general election debates and in dealing with the other side of the aisle going forward.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #508 on: October 19, 2015, 11:01:17 AM »
Through them all in the camp of Compassionate Conservatives. And yes, Rubio did "change his mind" on immigration, but what is not mentioned that two months ago he pulled a Jeb. Talking to hispanic groups in Spanish, he reversed course again.

The problem is that any candidate is going to have to pull from the Dem party to win. Can Rubio do so? I doubt it. Can Carson? He can get some, but his own views on immigration will lose him Rep support. Additionally, he just comes across as too nice.

I still say that at the very end, the GOPe will pull something to get a candidate other than Trump as the nominee. Here is a potential scenario......

1. Trump does not get 50% plus one to outright win the nomination. All other delegates are released to support the non Trump candidate and that person takes the nomination.

2. Trump is the only candidate with 8 plus wins. He does not have 50% plus 1 though and the other released delegates decline to vote. This throws the convention into the backrooms as a brokered convention. Someone else is "nominated" and wins in the smoke filled back room.  Trump is out.

Under either scenario, the Rep candidate will lose to the Dem in the general election. That is because the Trump base will walk and will not vote. Just like with Romney and the evangelicals that refused to vote for a Mormon candidate.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Dems: No Soution for Inequality, No Interest in Economic Growth
« Reply #509 on: October 19, 2015, 11:23:40 AM »
Michael Barone, right on the money.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/19/democrats_have_no_solution_for_inequality_no_interest_in_growth_128457.html

Democrats Have No Solution for Inequality, No Interest in Growth
By Michael Barone
October 19, 2015
You may not have noticed, but Lincoln Chafee, the erstwhile Republican U.S. senator and independent-turned-Democratic governor, had one penetrating comment at the Democrats' debate Tuesday night. "But let me just say this about income inequality," he said toward the end. "We've had a lot of talk over the last few minutes, hours or tens of minutes, but no one is saying how we're going to fix it."

Chafee offered no solution himself and showed his confusion about the issue by saying that inequality "all started with the Bush tax cuts that favored the wealthy." Actually, as my Washington Examiner colleague Timothy Carney has demonstrated, Bush's cuts actually made the tax system more progressive, with the highest 10 percent of earners paying a larger share of federal income taxes than before.


But every once in a while a pig sniffs out a truffle and Chafee, after standing silently for tens of minutes, found one. For the policies proffered by the others on the stage would do little or nothing to reduce income inequality — just like the increase in high earner rates Obama got in 2013 (which no one mentioned).

Nor did anyone call for higher rates now, though on the stump Bernie Sanders has mentioned favorably the 90 percent high rate in place during the 1950s.

One possible reason is that when middle-income voters hear talk of a tax increase they assume it will fall on them. Another is that higher rates would hit many East and West Coast Democratic voters.

Another good reason, though not one appealing to the candidates, is that history shows that no matter how high rates go, top earners' effective tax rates aren't much higher than currently. And current rates are the most progressive in the advanced OECD countries. The Scandinavian countries praised by Sanders have value-added (= sales) taxes around 25 percent.

A recent study by Brookings economists William Gale, Melissa Kearney and former Obama budget director Peter Orszag concluded that raising the high rate to 50 percent and distributing all proceeds to the lowest-income 20 percent would have an "exceedingly modest" effect in reducing income inequality. In response to critics, they wrote that "no single policy within the realm of the politically feasible could in fact substantially offset the long-term, powerful trends in income inequality."

Democrats' other proposals would not make much difference either, like Hillary Clinton's call for more spending on "early childhood education," despite repeated studies showing that it has no lasting effect, and "schools that meet needs," whatever that means.

Clinton, Sanders and Martin O'Malley called for "tuition-free college," echoing Barack Obama's free-junior-college proposal. But junior college is already free for most low-income students, and increases in government aid have produced administrative bloat. Which Clinton at least recognized, by calling for getting college costs down, without specifying how.

It's also worth asking what is progressive about a policy that forces taxpayers, many of whom lack the skills or inclination for college, to pay for the college costs of people who on average start off higher on the income ladder and may climb higher still.

Another favorite proposal was government-mandated paid family and medical leave. We need to join the rest of the advanced world on this, said Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley. And each called for a higher minimum wage ($15 for Sanders).

Naturally they avoided mentioning the costs — the elimination of some jobs, closing of some businesses, price increases to consumers. Wal-Mart's self-imposed $10 minimum resulted in sharply reduced profits and may mean higher prices for consumers. Somebody has to pay for free stuff.

Moreover, most minimum wage earners aren't sole household earners and aren't in low-income households. Paid family and medical leaves, presumably welcome to many, would cover only a few months of working lifetimes.

The Democrats' dirty little secret is that the inequality they complain of is most common in places where they have put policies like minimum wage increases and paid leave into place. California has the highest poverty rate (compared to living costs) in America, New York City the most economic inequality.

French economist Thomas Piketty, who advocates massive wealth redistribution, notes that inequality was reduced sharply in the first half of the twentieth century—by two world wars and a worldwide depression.

One thing you didn't hear the Democrats talk about was how to increase overall growth above the anemic 2 percent Obama levels. Do they have anything to say about that?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Time Magazine on GOPe Primary Rules
« Reply #510 on: October 19, 2015, 01:09:13 PM »
Here is time magazine writing about how the GOPe could manipulate the nomination by a change in rules at the convention. Any reason to believe that they would not do it> If they do, then the Dems win the election.

http://time.com/4065953/gop-rules-could-bring-a-messy-fight-to-the-nominating-convention/

They will consider such thorny issues as what to do about the 2012 rule requiring nominees to have won eight states. That rule can always be rewritten at the convention, say party bigwigs, if it will help speed selection of a nominee. But last-minute rule changes by party insiders would likely be met with fury from a rank and file not accustomed to the tyranny of the smoke-filled room. The fear in Washington is that the forces that have propelled Donald Trump and Ben Carson in the polls and exiled Speaker of the House John Boehner from Congress will unify to challenge other convention rules as the event approaches.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #511 on: October 19, 2015, 02:00:37 PM »
Fox News, Ed Henry, and other sources are reporting that Biden is entering the race. 

This will be interesting to say the least. Can Biden beat Hillary? Likely.

Who among the GOPe candidates can beat Biden? Bush or Rubio? No way. The dwarfs? Not at all.  Carson? We wait to see.  Trump? I don't know.

Can you imagine all the fun things that Trump would say about Biden when he makes his gaffs?
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #512 on: October 19, 2015, 03:06:41 PM »
Webb considering running as an Independent. Too bad he has no support.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #513 on: October 19, 2015, 09:01:23 PM »
 :-D Pat Buchanan asking my same question............and coming to my own conclusions.


http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/can-trump-be-stopped/
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #514 on: October 20, 2015, 01:15:15 PM »
Hillary's testimony on Thursday may be pivotal.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #515 on: October 20, 2015, 01:38:25 PM »
CD,

Can I have some of what you are smoking? Not going to matter at all................ :wink:
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Hillary testimony
« Reply #516 on: October 20, 2015, 05:28:00 PM »
I doubt she will say anything meaningful, just try to use this as a photo opp and a political appearance.  It will get interesting if the questioner Gowdy can make the case or the followup of exactly what is being asked that isn't being answered and why it matters.  

The format in the debate was, ask tough question, ignore the question, ask tough followup, ignore again, then drop it as if it was asked and answered.  That isn't going to be the format here.  She could be asked 5 or 6 followups and it could get combative if Gowdy has meaningful questions and presses for an answer.

They have already questioned staff and are just receiving the Stevens emails now.

Hillary's practice answers in current interviews are that for her to address the Ambassador's pleas for help would have been "political", and to let the security professionals handle it was proper, even though they got it wrong and she is supposed to be running the department.  

The Stevens emails went to Hillary but she passed the buck somewhere else.  Gowdy can't say it, but is that going to be her method of governing as President, 'well we have professionals who handle that and it's not my job to override their deicisions...
« Last Edit: October 20, 2015, 05:36:49 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #517 on: October 20, 2015, 08:59:40 PM »
Gowdy has a reputation as being more than a little skilled in the art of examining a witness , , ,



ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #520 on: October 21, 2015, 08:01:19 AM »
I like the idea of a Trump - Carson team. Let Carson work on health care issues directed by Trump. 

This would have full cross over appeal, especially since Trumpeteers know that he would control Carson and his even more liberal leanings. Of course, the GOPe will still have the plans in effect that would derail Trump in the Convention.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #521 on: October 21, 2015, 09:23:52 AM »
Joe Biden not running.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #522 on: October 21, 2015, 09:26:30 AM »
I like the idea of a Trump - Carson team. Let Carson work on health care issues directed by Trump. 

This would have full cross over appeal, especially since Trumpeteers know that he would control Carson and his even more liberal leanings. Of course, the GOPe will still have the plans in effect that would derail Trump in the Convention.

At this point in time, that is the right ticket.  I'm guessing about a dozen major things are going to happen between now and March 1 or so to shake things up dramatically.

I have said the Republicans need to find a prominent role for Carson if he is not the nominee.

Trump is the one who can pick Carson who is now a resident of Florida.  
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/dr-ben-carson-im-running-for-president/nk8Cw/
West Palm Beach resident Ben Carson confirmed Sunday he’s entering the Republican race for president,
Rubio, Bush and Carson perhaps should not pick each other to be VP.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/16/lawrence-odonnell/president-vice-president-same-state-allowed/
Constitution...prevents electors in the Electoral College from voting for a president and vice president who are both from their home state.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #523 on: October 21, 2015, 09:31:47 AM »
Joe Biden not running.

One dumbsh*t liberal wacko down, two to go.

This means Hillary will not be indicted.  Joe knows.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #524 on: October 21, 2015, 09:32:55 AM »
Joe Biden not running.

One dumbsh*t liberal wacko down, two to go.

This means Hillary will not be indicted.  Joe knows.

Yup.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #525 on: October 21, 2015, 09:36:17 AM »
Doug & GM

My thoughts exactly.

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #526 on: October 21, 2015, 09:36:57 AM »
OTOH Joe frequently gets it wrong  :lol:

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #527 on: October 21, 2015, 09:44:45 AM »
OTOH Joe frequently gets it wrong  :lol:

You raise a good point.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuvfCnMizAA[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuvfCnMizAA


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #528 on: October 21, 2015, 01:11:04 PM »
Carl Icahn to create $150m SUPER PAC.  Icahn is a "true shark". How, if any, does this change things with Trump?  Is this a sign that others will enter to do battle?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/21/us-usa-election-icahn-idUSKCN0SF2AK20151021?utm_source=twitter
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #529 on: October 21, 2015, 02:28:13 PM »
Interesting Website, Hillary is 44. It was a website supporting Hillary in 2008.

Currently they are posting about the Rep candidates and doing a good job evaluating the situation. 

http://www.hillaryis44.org/2015/10/20/realdonaldtrump-walks-away-with-the-clinton-coalition/#comments
PPulatie



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #532 on: October 22, 2015, 07:59:52 AM »
Iowa

Carson leading Trrump 28 to 20

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2291[/


I was going to post this but see PP already got it.  A minute ago Trump was leading in all states (including the previous 13 polls in a row in Iowa), but is down dramatically since late August in that first state contest.  You know what a smart businessman will do when his trend line starts to drop ...   )

In next Wednesday's debate, it is Rubio who will stand next to Trump in center stage, with Jeb moving one step to the side - closer to the exit.  With debates still not really Carson's strength, the focus, attention and contrast could quickly become Trump and Rubio.  

Rubio's slow, slow climb in poll numbers is a good thing for him only if he can keep it up.  If he continues to poll better than others in general election polling and continue to inch up in nomination polling, he could very possibly peak at just the right time.

We still haven't really had one big gaffe or one big personal failing hit any of these 17 candidates.  There have to be at least a few surprises coming...
« Last Edit: October 22, 2015, 08:01:49 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #533 on: October 22, 2015, 09:37:37 AM »
The question that comes to mind is whether this is an outlier or not.  There is no mention of how much evangelicals were represented in the polls as a total percentage of those polled. This would certainly affect Carson results.

Carson has certainly increased his position, at the expense of all others. I do know that he has been doing an extensive advertising blitz in the state.

But this is where the ground game really comes into play. How big of a ground presence does Carson have. I know that both Jeb and Trump have significant presence there. Trump has the most paid employees and they are using some unique methods for signing up volunteers for Get Out the Vote efforts.

What happens when Trump kicks in the advertising?

Interesting times...
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #534 on: October 23, 2015, 08:09:24 AM »
Trump - sinking like a stone in Iowa:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_caucus-3194.html

Okay, down just one more point but showing the Quinnipiac wasn't an outlier.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Hillbillary thread:
PP:  "The GOPe cannot put up a candidate that can beat her. They will run Rubio, Jeb or in a pinch, Cruz. Each will lose.
Carson will lose if he runs, because he is too nice and with his previous stands on  issues,  very vulnerable.
Trump would have a hard time, but he could probably win. But the GOPe will not let him be the nominee."


These are good candidates.  The winner will emerge from a position of strength.  It could even be Trump.  The biggest problem always is that they have to run against the Democrat and they have to run against the media too.  It' very hard to get a message out.  Maybe we say this every time, but I think next Wed debate will be crucial.  Trump succeeded in getting it to two hours, making it very watchable.  Now we sort of know all the candidates, we know the opponent, we know the time frame and we know the issues.  The learning curve is mostly over.  Now we need to see, hear and visualize which one of them can step up and do this, run, win and govern.

Most likely it will be Rubio running with Fiorina or Trump running with Carson.  (Running against Hillary and Castro.)  With 17 running, why pick someone who skipped the vetting process, and why pick someone who didn't already show wide appeal.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #535 on: October 23, 2015, 08:39:08 AM »
Doug,

You are correct. Any GOP candidate will be running against the Dems, Hillary, the media, and the free giveaways. That is why I see Hillary winning. (From all indications, Trump would  also be running against a large portion of his own party.)

The country is screwed..................
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #536 on: October 23, 2015, 08:56:28 AM »
Doug,
You are correct. Any GOP candidate will be running against the Dems, Hillary, the media, and the free giveaways. That is why I see Hillary winning. (From all indications, Trump would  also be running against a large portion of his own party.)

The country is screwed..................

The other factors the experts track are this.  When a candidate runs to hold the White House after a two term incumbent two factors predict the result more than anything the actual candidates of either party do:
1)  The approval of the President leaving office.  He is now upside down by 5 points, 45.1% approval, 50.2% disapproval.  A small margin but stuck in place.
2)  The condition of the economy.  This is the heart of our argument with Brian Wesbury.  He predicted last time the condition of the economy alone was not bad enough to defeat Obama and was right.  I would argue that the perception of the condition of this economy is roughy the same as Obama's job approval, 45-50 upside down.  The view of it should be 0% approval, 100% disapproval, but politics gets in the way.

These factors play against the Democrats.  The changing demographics plays against the Republicans.  This is going to be a close one.  Small margin, huge consequences.

My backup plan of finding lakeshore in conservative Canada is now screwed too!

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #537 on: October 23, 2015, 09:09:20 AM »
All true Doug. My backup plan will be a cardboard home that gets replaced with each rain.

BTW, just signed up for Social Security yesterday. Decided to take it since if I did not, it would go to some illegal or welfare dependent. 

Here is interesting stuff on Jeb. Looks like he is about finished....

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-23/jeb-bush-orders-across-the-board-pay-cuts-for-struggling-campaign

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jeb-bush-struggles-to-galvanize-his-familys-donor-base-as-campaign-falters-1445557025

The entire focus for Jeb now is Iowa. He must have a good showing, or else he is gone. Expect there to be more positive articles about Rubio.

As to Snarly being a Rubio running mate, I don't think that is likely. Notice her support is gone...........kaput.  Any bounce she got is over and done.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #538 on: October 23, 2015, 09:38:34 AM »
Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and Santorum did so in 2012.  The evengelical vote and the unique process in Iowa make it a sui generis state and in the present election one uniquely favorable to Carson.

Catching my eye as a small but perhaps telling moment is a late night Trump tweet explaining the Iowa poll by saying Monsanto corn must have rotted the pollees views.  He thought better of it  , , , and blamed the post on an aide/intern.   :roll:  As we say in NY "Yeah, right."  :roll:

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #539 on: October 23, 2015, 10:43:29 AM »
This was a "retweet" of what some person had tweeted earlier. Obviously, the original tweet was a joke. Should it have been retweeted? No..............but if this is going to change somones viewpoint, then that person would not have gone for Trump anyway.

Of course, this tweet was way far worse than what Hillary says about Republicans..........
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #540 on: October 23, 2015, 10:55:25 AM »
Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and Santorum did so in 2012.  The evengelical vote and the unique process in Iowa make it a sui generis state and in the present election one uniquely favorable to Carson.

Catching my eye as a small but perhaps telling moment is a late night Trump tweet explaining the Iowa poll by saying Monsanto corn must have rotted the pollees views.  He thought better of it  , , , and blamed the post on an aide/intern.   :roll:  As we say in NY "Yeah, right."  :roll:

Right.  Iowa doesn't pick the right winner, but they are among those watching the closest so the trend lines do matter.

As Trump gets more careful and Presidential in the debates and interviews, maybe the gaffes will come from the late night tweeting.


Carly lost momentum partly because it is hard to stay relevant and in the news.  She still has proved to be the toughest antidote to Hillary as a running mate.  She should make sure that is her focus in Wed's debate.  Lindsey Graham, former military prosecutor, who I otherwise don't like makes a very good

Bush's lost momentum (that he never had) is now the big news story.  It blows his theory for winning.  He is insurmountable because of money, but is cutting salaries by 40%. In other words, he is not insurmountable.  He was a good Governor.  Other than being completely unchangeable on open immigration (and a last name not suited to the political times), he should have been a very strong candidate and wasn't.  

This is over when Rubio names Carly VP, puts Carson in charge of healthcare, appoints Trump to build the wall - non-profit, Cruz to the Supreme Court and Jeb back to fundraising.  Santorum can lead the national prayer breakfast, Chris Christie can be Attorney General, Bobbie Jindal Secretary of Energy.  Am I missing anyone?  Kasich to head OMB, Huickabee back to pundit and elevate Rand Paul to majority leader of the senate.  Can't we all just work together - like Democrats do?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #541 on: October 23, 2015, 11:08:31 AM »
This was a "retweet" of what some person had tweeted earlier. Obviously, the original tweet was a joke. Should it have been retweeted? No..............but if this is going to change somones viewpoint, then that person would not have gone for Trump anyway.

Of course, this tweet was way far worse than what Hillary says about Republicans..........


A joke, yes.  Poll numbers down, blame the pollees.  Don't think Trump is laughing much about what could be trend line down. There isn't aline to follow his favorite one which is that I am leading in all the polls. 

This was dangerously close to catching a Manhattan New Yorker making fun of Iowa or Iowans.  A Walker aide lost his job over that - and he was from a neighboring state.

Trump's strength of (saying/writing whatever comes to mind) is also his weakness - and may be his downfall.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #542 on: October 23, 2015, 11:26:21 AM »
Yup.

This was a "retweet" of what some person had tweeted earlier. Obviously, the original tweet was a joke. Should it have been retweeted? No..............but if this is going to change somones viewpoint, then that person would not have gone for Trump anyway.

Of course, this tweet was way far worse than what Hillary says about Republicans..........


A joke, yes.  Poll numbers down, blame the pollees.  Don't think Trump is laughing much about what could be trend line down. There isn't aline to follow his favorite one which is that I am leading in all the polls. 

This was dangerously close to catching a Manhattan New Yorker making fun of Iowa or Iowans.  A Walker aide lost his job over that - and he was from a neighboring state.

Trump's strength of (saying/writing whatever comes to mind) is also his weakness - and may be his downfall.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #543 on: October 23, 2015, 11:45:32 AM »
Perhaps, but he then changes the dialogue again.  He has disavowed alll Super Pacs alligned with him and told them he does not want the money. Then he challenges all other candidates to do the same.

Was this done because there were claims of the Pacs getting too close to his campaign? Likely, but there is no way that the other campaigns are not working with the Super Pacs in one way or another. But it is a great move to challenge others to disavow the Pacs.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #544 on: October 23, 2015, 11:47:00 AM »
DOJ/FBI will not bring charges against Lois Lehner............just breaking..

So anyone still think that Hillary will be held liable for her actions?

The fix is in.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #545 on: October 23, 2015, 11:57:36 AM »
If anyone here believes in String Theory, I fear that we have crossed a string membrane and entered an alternative string universe. Here is why:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-23/jeb-bush-orders-across-the-board-pay-cuts-for-struggling-campaign

This new universe actually has a Bush cutting expenses and budgets......................what other reason can there be for this?
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #546 on: October 23, 2015, 03:04:09 PM »
"This is over when Rubio names Carly VP, puts Carson in charge of healthcare, appoints Trump to build the wall - non-profit, Cruz to the Supreme Court and Jeb back to fundraising.  Santorum can lead the national prayer breakfast, Chris Christie can be Attorney General, Bobbie Jindal Secretary of Energy.  Am I missing anyone?  Kasich to head OMB, Huickabee back to pundit and elevate Rand Paul to majority leader of the senate.  Can't we all just work together - like Democrats do?"

This is the way winners think  8-)

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #547 on: October 23, 2015, 03:27:39 PM »
Then the Dems resurrect Harry Reid and nothing goes anywhere............... :evil:
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #548 on: October 23, 2015, 03:42:30 PM »
If we win (e.g. with the Rubio team of previous post) and hold the Congress, amazing things can get done-- Dingy Harry be damned.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #549 on: October 23, 2015, 03:50:45 PM »
Forget what you are smoking, I want what you are drinking!!

PPulatie