Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471494 times)

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #600 on: October 28, 2015, 07:56:50 PM »
After the Debate analysis......

1. Cruz scored major points leading the attack on the media and moderators. This will increase his support.

2. Carson did himself no harm, but he may lose a bit of support due to the strength of Croz.

3. Christie did okay, but it won't change his position any.

4. Snarly did not improve her position at all. No stand out moment. She may lost a point to Cruz.

5. Rubio did good against Jeb. It was a TKO.

6. Bush is now cooked. It is over. His donors will go to Rubio. He may try to hang on, but his numbers are going to drop.

7. Huckabee did good, but it will not increase his numbers unless he can pull from Carson.

8. Rand, stick a fork in him. The quicker he is gone, the better.

9. Kasich got handed his head. Say goodbye in a month.

10. Trump did no harm. In fact, he is becoming more polished. He did score at the end. This should stem any potential bleeding. (Watch his latest Iowa stop and you see how much better he is becoming.)

Final thoughts........

It is now between Carson, Rubio, Trump and Cruz. So what has to happen from here.

1. Rubio must finish off Jeb and gather his support. Expect the dwarfs support to move more to him.

2. The PACs have to take out Trump. No one else can.

3. Carson and Cruz must develop a strategy to minimize Trump without alienating his support. If they can do that with the PACs efforts, then it could stop further support going to Trump. It will not cause the Trumpkins to move away from him.

Based upon current polling, Trump is in the key position going into the primaries and the convention. If he cannot be stopped from winning the majority of the primaries, then the only alternative is for the GOP to change Rule 40 in the early convention days. Then they turn the convention into a brokered convention. But if they do this and throw the nomination to Rubio, then the Trumpkins stay home and Hillary wins.

CD,

I knew a girl who liked that.......she is about 60 now. Would you like to meet her?   :evil: :evil: :evil:  ( I am so bad!!!)

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #601 on: October 28, 2015, 08:47:22 PM »
"But if they do this and throw the nomination to Rubio, then the Trumpkins stay home and Hillary wins."


   - I missed the debate.  Enjoying the commentary here.   Wondering...

What does it say about Trumpkins if they can't see a difference between Rubio and Hillary?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #602 on: October 28, 2015, 09:01:46 PM »
The Trumpkins don't find any difference. Both are supported by the COC and Wall Street firms. And both are politicians.



PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #603 on: October 28, 2015, 09:08:48 PM »
Packing to leave the house tomorrow at 0500.  Would love to dive into an assessment of tonight but I must pack.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #604 on: October 28, 2015, 09:17:26 PM »
Yeah right.  Are you doing a Hollywood actor and moving  to Europe because Trump will be the next president?  :-D

Can we declare CNBC and MSNDC officially DOA after tonight?
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #605 on: October 28, 2015, 09:44:27 PM »
About Cruz.....

I like Cruz but he’s like me, a technical type best suited for SCOTUS in his case. (As I told some people today when we were discussing issues,  I know the problems and have the models to resolve the problems, but I cannot market them. I don't have the personality or demeanor. In many ways, Cruz is the same.)

Cruz knows the arguments and can present them, but he can't win it alone as proven by his attempts and failures in the Senate. At best he can only deliver a tie.

The country doesn't have much time left in the game  and this could be it for us and our chance to save the country. There is no overtime. We can’t wait for some smooth setup. What we need right now is a hard charging, hard hitting, run you over, smash mouth full back who runs over the competition. Otherwise we lose.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #606 on: October 29, 2015, 08:22:46 AM »
Rubio ended Jeb Bush’s campaign with the kind of body shot that buckles your knees. That’s on Bush, who never should have come after Rubio in that spot for a host of strategic and tactical reasons. But what should scare Hillary Clinton is how effortless Rubio is even with throwaway lines, like “I’m against anything that’s bad for my mother.” Most people have no idea how fearsome raw political talent can be. Clinton does know because she’s seen it up close. She sleeps next to it for a contractually-obligated 18 nights per year.

   - Jonathon Last, Weekly Standard
« Last Edit: October 29, 2015, 08:26:41 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #607 on: October 29, 2015, 09:22:02 AM »
Agreed. Rubio took a lesson from Tyson.
PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Ben Carson's Campaign Manager Wants to Re-Invent the Debates...
« Reply #608 on: October 29, 2015, 01:16:31 PM »
Sounds like an excellent plan to me.  It's time for Reince Priebus to be fired, btw.  Last night was a travesty.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/260610/ben-carsons-campaign-manager-wants-reinvent-daniel-greenfield
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #609 on: October 29, 2015, 01:40:37 PM »
"It's time for Reince Priebus to be fired,"

Yup.  Clean them all out.

I vote for Doug to take over the party.   Or probably not popular here but Bobby Jindal.   :-D

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #610 on: October 29, 2015, 02:13:47 PM »
I think the growing disgust with the GOPe will lead to the end of the GOP unless serious reforms are made now.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #611 on: October 30, 2015, 07:37:06 PM »
"It's time for Reince Priebus to be fired,"

Yup.  Clean them all out.

I vote for Doug to take over the party.   Or probably not popular here but Bobby Jindal.   :-D

Blushing. )  Let's go with Bobby Jindal.  I've already agreed to serve as Crafty's VP if the convention can't agree on any of the others.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #612 on: October 31, 2015, 08:22:31 AM »
Doug,

So you plan on going to a lot of "state" funerals in place of Crafty?

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #613 on: October 31, 2015, 09:49:46 AM »
Doug,
So you plan on going to a lot of "state" funerals in place of Crafty?

I can't divulge all our plans but I believe we are already planning a state funeral for the little shit in North Korea.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #614 on: October 31, 2015, 01:19:29 PM »
Then you need my yorkie to assist in any operations.......he is Force Ruff.......


PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #615 on: November 01, 2015, 03:27:42 PM »
He looks ready to go!  Was that his Halloween costume or just a typical day defending the pp compound?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #616 on: November 01, 2015, 05:49:46 PM »
Neighborhood watch...................Black Lives Matter does not come around here.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #617 on: November 02, 2015, 04:27:37 PM »
How will this affect the election?  Obama considering ignoring the courts on immigration amnesty.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/258689-leaked-dhs-memo-shows-obama-might-circumvent-dapa

How will Rubio, Jeb and Cruz respond?  I KNOW what Trump will say.
PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #618 on: November 02, 2015, 04:43:53 PM »
Obama is hell-bent on making sure a Republican can't win this next election.  Make no mistake.
"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 #619 on: November 02, 2015, 05:29:50 PM »
For those who believe Rubio is against Amnesty, I direct you to

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/marco-rubio-jorge-ramos-will-keep-obamas-first-executive-amnesty-place-legislative-amnesty-enacted/

Put Rubio in with Paul Ryan who is in favor of Amnesty, we just might as well open all borders. After all, that is what Soros wants.
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #620 on: November 03, 2015, 10:03:11 AM »
Yup.  That is a big problem with me too.

Dissolving the concept of nation, country, sovereignty is the major goal of the leftists with Soros one of the biggest ones.  Along with Obama.

Naturally these tyrants believe they should also lead the world under one government with total control over 7 billion people.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #621 on: November 03, 2015, 10:05:45 AM »
Andrew Malcolm of the Investors Business Daily really shows his bias. He cites the current WSJ/NBC poll showing Carson at 29% and Trump at 23% nationwide. Then he cites the IDB/TIPP poll in early October showing similar results and the new WSJ poll is confirming the movement.

http://news.investors.com/politics-andrew-malcolm/110315-778808-ben-carson-jumps-in-new-polls-ted-cruz-donald-trump.htm

What this ass ignores is the newest IDB/TIPP poll for Oct 31 that shows Trump at 28% and Carson at 24%.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-polls/103015-778378-donald-trump-leads-ben-carson-second-in-ibd-tipp-poll.htm?ref=HPLNews

This is the intellectual dishonesty of the media and pundits. Ignore more recent polls from the company for which you write and present older polls from them to support your bias.

Here is a question for anyone who can answer:

Trump is leading in every state poll except Iowa (and it is moving back and forth) Oklahoma and Louisiana. Carson leads in those states and no one else is close. Trump also leads in most national polls significantly.

How in the world does IDB and WSJ/NBC come in with pools showing Carson leading nationally?  (Wonder what election parameters that they are using to reach their results? How much bias is built in?)

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #622 on: November 03, 2015, 10:07:28 AM »
But we really know why the push for amnesty. Get amnesty going, then eliminate the borders and we can have the Western Hemisphere Economic Union, just like the ECU. And what a success that has been. :x
PPulatie

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1059
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #623 on: November 03, 2015, 10:52:44 AM »
Also notice how the media today (as Rush Limbaugh illustrated with a media montage of clips) is giddy with excitement that Carson is supposedly overtaking Trump in the polls.  Never mind that they don't take Carson seriously, either.  As Newt has pointed out - these two have been the front-runners from the beginning, and the press is acting as if they aren't serious candidates, and can't wait for them to go away.  These people are in for a very rude awakening.  I think George Will is already constipated just thinking about it...
"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 #624 on: November 03, 2015, 11:08:45 AM »
Also, they talk about if Trump begins to lose, he will drop out. They miss the point that Trump is the ultimate competitor. He will not accept dropping in the polls. He will fight like no one else.

When the going gets touch, the tough get going..................
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
What's up with the Republican VAT tax? Herman Cain's 9-9-9 is alive and well??
« Reply #625 on: November 03, 2015, 06:55:29 PM »
The tax plans from Bush, Trump and Rubio-Lee are all of the same general framework.  Rubio doesn't cut the rates low enough and Trump doesn't raise enough revenue - these are details to be negotiated with congress to get a final bill - if the candidate wins. 

On the other side of it, in addition to Huckabee and his fair tax (VAT tax), are Rand Paul and Ted Cruz who have both come out with tax plans that rely on a new VAT tax.  Paul calls for a 14.5% flat tax on income and a 14.5% Vat tax called a 'business transfer tax'.  Ted Cruz is proposing a 10% flat tax on income plus a 16% 'tax on business', VAT tax.  Great if you think this country with all the tax the rich rhetoric is going to change  that suddenly and switch the emphasis over to the more regressive consumption tax. 

It isn't realistic to me, that we would could a) pass near repeal the income tax on the rich, and b) implement a whole new layer of taxation and c) hope that liberals wull not someday come to power and raise up both tax rates to the sky, on top of the 8-10% tax many states and localities already put on sales and consumption.

My view is that we can't and won't agree to a new consumption tax (or any other new tax) without repeal of the income tax - and that isn't ever going to happen.

On the income tax side. bold cuts like Reagan's would be great but are also not likely to be politically possible, so we have to steer this big ship around a little more gently and gradually.  Propose cuts that are significant enough to grow the economy but modest enough to get elected..  Pass tax reform and regulatory reform and see results enough to turn the corner.  Turn around the trend of people leaving the workforce and businesses closing faster than new ones are opening, grow incomes, grow startups, grow the participation rate enough to curb spending demands.  Then cut again, both tax rates and spending.  And again.  Why not have our growth spiral be upward?

Hong Kong did something like this.  Their flat tax and free trade policies were so effective that they needed to keep lowering the rate to get rid of the excess revenues.

http://archive.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/hongkong/hongkong.shtml
http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/18/hong-kong-tax-system-law-business-opinions-books-michael-littlewood.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2006/03/flat-tax-is-the-way-of-the-future


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #627 on: November 04, 2015, 10:42:37 AM »
CD,

Are you doing a Fox News?  Only  post the bad Trump polls and not the good ones?   :lol:

As I posted under Carson, the National Polls are all over the place. Quinnipac and others are doing national polls where only 400 people might be polled, but they claim that this is "representative" of the country. This is just too small of a sample for nationwide accuracy.  (Plus, they don't give the true internals nor the "assumptions" that they are making about the electorate.

That said, there does appear to be movement towards Carson after all of the positive publicity he has received over the last few weeks. Cable has been promoting him consistently in a positive light, while doing Trump in a negative light.

What is most important at this stage are the state polls. One must get nominated first in the convention and then go on from there. At this point, Trump does remain the front runner by far for the nomination, unless Carson can remove enough support to take over as front runner in the states.

Again, watch for Convention shenanigans to rule the day in the convention and in backroom deals, through everything to Rubio. And then, Rubio loses in the national election to Hillary.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #628 on: November 04, 2015, 11:47:43 AM »
pp:  "...And then, Rubio loses in the national election to Hillary."

That last part makes no sense.    :wink:


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #629 on: November 04, 2015, 11:54:47 AM »
In that the trend has been for ALL polls showing Trump in the lead (ignoring the ones that compared him with Hillary) it is worth noting a change in the trend AND this thread certainly has you to represent it here so no need for me to duplicate your work  :-D

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #630 on: November 04, 2015, 12:20:16 PM »
Doug,

If it takes GOPe shenanigans in the convention to get Rubio nominated, then a large part of the GOP insurrection group will sit out, throwing the election to Hillary. Why bother to vote when the GOPe does not listen to its members, but instead to what Wall Street, the COC and other special interest groups do?

CD,

As to the polls, again I ask............"why are the National Polls showing such different results among themselves and also the State Polls?  What is the difference and what is being missed"?

PPulatie

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.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Trump still trashing his Republican colleagues
« Reply #632 on: November 04, 2015, 12:45:33 PM »
Trump:  Carson doesn't have the temperament to be President.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/03/trump_carson_doesnt_have_temperament_experience_for_president.html

The calling the kettle _____, well whatever.


Donald Trump on Marco Rubio: "He's An Overrated Person"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/11/02/donald_trump_on_marco_rubio_hes_an_overrated_person.html
. Marco doesn’t show up to votes," Trump said, "he doesn’t do things that you’re supposed to do."

Trump goes on and on and on and doesn't land a punch.

Here is a little info on candidates rated and over-rated.  

Rubio (I have pointed out) won swing state Florida by a million votes over a popular sitting governor.  He beat the Dem by a million and a half.  This is just 10 years after the Bush v Gore fiasco, 10 years of demographics allegedly moving away from conservative Republicans.  

Trump and Carson (obviously) have never won a primary or an election.
Cruz defeated a popular, sitting Lt Gov in his primary and won the election, in red state Texas.
Hillary Clinton has never won an election outside of bluest state New York.
Only Jeb and Kasich can match or surpass Rubio's swing state success.

If Rubio is nowhere in the polls and over-rated, why is he the fixation of Trump's attention?  Rubio moved through a pack of 17 from "nowhere" to 3rd place, and first place of those who have politcal experience, in case that turns out to be a positive factor.

Trump's bragging rights include pretending to foresee the future.  1st place now might or might not be better than 3rd place now, but 1st place Aug-Oct is not better than 1st place in March - May.

The delegate score right now is zero to zero to zero...

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #633 on: November 04, 2015, 12:45:54 PM »
Pat:

Of course you raise fair points above the diverse results of the various polls.  I'm certainly not claiming the one I posted is the one true poll.

That said, the Trump comments described by Doug in his post immediately prior to this one to me sound like a one trick pony getting a bit desperate when the crowd has seen his one trick more than one time too many.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2015, 12:48:15 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #634 on: November 04, 2015, 12:57:51 PM »
Why attack Rubio from a purely tactical perspective:

1. Rubio is the heir apparent to Bush and his failure. Supporters leaving Bush and going to Rubio is a large part of the surge of Rubio.

2. Attacking Rubio right now may cause some hesitation by Bush supporters to move to Rubio.

3. For a Trump splitter strategy, it is important to keep Bush running. As long as Bush stays in, Rubio has less of a likelihood of winning many states.

4. Negating Rubio may allow Trump to garner some of Carson's support if Carson falters.

5. These actions may also serve to lessen Cruz strengthening in the polls a bit.

This is all about positioning for the primaries and keeping other candidates from gaining too much strength. It is in many ways the original Bush strategy for winning the nomination with 25 - 30% of the vote. Trump is simply using the GOPe tactics against them.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #635 on: November 04, 2015, 01:00:42 PM »
Doug,

If it takes GOPe shenanigans in the convention to get Rubio nominated, then a large part of the GOP insurrection group will sit out, throwing the election to Hillary. Why bother to vote when the GOPe does not listen to its members, but instead to what Wall Street, the COC and other special interest groups

pp,  If the polls today are the same as the polls during the primaries, Trump will win under all sets of rules.

That said, getting people friendly to your cause elected to delegates and positions of power and influence in the state and national parties is part of politics and part of the process.  But in the primary when it counts, the chair and the committee members get only one vote just like everyone else.  

If you, Trump or anyone else want to tell us they will stay home to get Hilary elected because Rubio or someone else won the most votes and delegates to win the nomination, I can't stop you, but I will share the consequences that you deserve.

As honest and smart of a fellow that I believe you are, I don't believe you won't see a difference between Rubio (or any of them that might win) and Hillary by this time in November of 2016.

I favor Rubio for just exactly that reason; I believe he can inspire the most people to turn out and vote our way.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #636 on: November 04, 2015, 01:22:19 PM »
"Rubio is the heir apparent to Bush and his failure. Supporters leaving Bush and going to Rubio is a large part of the surge of Rubio."

True, but Trump is saying the opposite, that both are basically losers, getting no support.  As an old boss of mine said after having it pointed out that my division doubled our sales and won a national award for it, two time sh*t is still sh*t.  By attacking, Trump is acknowledging the reality of a 'Rubio surge' - before it happens.

Along the same lines, Trump is calling for Bush to 'drop out "like Walker did', when he knows that him saying that just pressures Bush all the more to stay in.  Clever or strategic you might say, but reveals he is hardly a straight shooter or non-politician.

Meanwhile we still haven't heard anything close to a straight answer on how he would execute his headline issue, the promise to deport 11 million illegals.  I will try

We haven't heard how because he won't do it.  Just a run of the mill, typical politician, political promise.   No? 

http://forums.talkingpointsmemo.com/t/discussion-trump-dodges-specific-questions-on-how-he-will-facilitate-mass-deportation/26788
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/08/23/as-rivals-snipe-trump-dodges-questions-on-details-of-immigration-plan/?_r=0
http://politicalwire.com/2015/08/24/trump-dodges-questions-on-details-of-immigration-plan/

Trump did not detail how he would handle illegal immigrants en masse, arguing that the only reason these questions are being asked is because of his tough stance on the issue.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/24/donald-trump-defends-mass-deportation-illegal-immigrants-oreilly-factor

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #637 on: November 04, 2015, 01:28:22 PM »
Doug,

I go back to what I have seen time and again over the decades, and I am through with the entire mess. What I mean:

1. 2012 - Romney is the electable one. He will represent the values of the Conservative Movement. He learned his lesson on Romney Care. He is a winner. And what did we get? A loser who had the best position in which to win an election with an incumbent president who should never have been re-elected. And now he brags about Romney Care leading to ObamaCare.

Would he have made a difference if elected? Not likely. A nice guy who would not make waves.

2. 2008 - McCain, the RINO who was also electable. Yeah right. His team even sabotaged his own VP selection. If elected, he would have only initiated RINO type legislation and allowing amnesty. Just an absolute joke.

3. 2000 through 2008 - Bush, the compassionate conservative. Another term for a RINO republican. Bush added more social programs and spending that anyone before him. Hell, Bush could not even beat Gore in the popular vote.

4. 1996 - Dole, another "winner". Yawn.....

5. 1988 to 1992 - Bush Sn. Read my lips, no new taxes............and we got new taxes.

6. 1980 to 1988 - Reagan, the only good Republican in my lifetime. And the GOPe did not want him. They wanted Bush.

7. 1976 - Ford. I will give Ford credit on one thing. No Republican, even Reagan, could have won in 1976. Carter was purely the result of the Nixon calamity.

8. 1968 to 1976 - Nixon. What can I say? Terrible "economic" president. Wage/Price Controls, Dropping the Gold Standard.

I haven't seen a good Republican President or candidate since Ronald Reagan. Now, I am expected to believe that someone like Rubio will be any different?

Rubio was elected by the Tea Party support, and then he dropped them. Rubio was for amnesty before he was against it, and now with Ramos, he speaks in spanish and essentially says he is for it. His Super PACS are all Wall Street or COC groups. His latest PAC is put together by another Amnesty supporter.

Voting for Rubio or most others will not change the direction of the country.

The truth is that if anyone but Cruz or Trump is the nominee, I will stay home and so will many others. Might as well hasten the fall of the country so it can start all over.

(Just like Bernacke and the Fed with Housing. Get out of the way and let it collapse and rebuild. If we had done what was needed in 2009 to correct things, then housing and lending would be well corrected by now and not just stumbling along.)

Why do we NEED professional politicians in DC? They are no better than attorneys. Just paid prostitutes who will screw you any chance they get......................





PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #638 on: November 04, 2015, 01:37:10 PM »
Doug,

First, do you think that Trumps' reputation means anything to him? If he is not "honest" to the point that he can be, he will destroy his "brand". There ends his business career and also future profits.

If he details point by point how he is going to get rid of the illegals, he is doing the same damned thing that Obama did in Iraq. "We are leaving Iraq in 2011, pulling everyone out." And what happened, the enemy laid low until we left, and then there went the country..........all the lives and money wasted. This is the same thing that will occur if Trump details a complete plan.

Why isn't anyone asking for all the details on immigration from Rubio, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina or others?  Why are they not asked what they will do and how they will accomplish it? Isn't it fair to ask them the same thing?

As to attacking before Rubio does surge, doesn't that make sense tactically? Why let Rubio gain ground where he can take control when you can stop him before that point?

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #639 on: November 04, 2015, 01:42:55 PM »
Great story pp and I share your frustration on those others but Rubio's vision and capabilities are nothing at all like Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, McCain, Romney etc. (To be debated further no doubt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now this:

Rubio backs Cruz on tougher penalties for illegal immigrants
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/257867-rubio-backs-cruz-on-tougher-penalties-for-illegal-immigrants

And this:

Jorge Ramos:
 “those Latinos, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, have decided not to defend undocumented immigrants.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/11/02/ramos-trump-promoting-bigotry-cant-understand-why-rubio-and-cruz-arent-defending-immigrants/

The real difference in policy between Trump and Rubio on immigration is not as clear as you make it out to be (IMHO), while the difference between Rubio and Hillary is.
(That he negotiated with the Democrats to try to get a bill into conference to head off a worse action by Obama is a stubborn truth that he can't make go away.)


If you care about this issue only and it comes down to Rubio and Hillary, you will have a simple choice to make.  Sit home against your own interest or go out, hold your nose and pull the lever.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #640 on: November 04, 2015, 01:51:04 PM »
Doug,

First, do you think that Trumps' reputation means anything to him? If he is not "honest" to the point that he can be, he will destroy his "brand". There ends his business career and also future profits.

If he details point by point how he is going to get rid of the illegals, he is doing the same damned thing that Obama did in Iraq. "We are leaving Iraq in 2011, pulling everyone out." And what happened, the enemy laid low until we left, and then there went the country..........all the lives and money wasted. This is the same thing that will occur if Trump details a complete plan.

Why isn't anyone asking for all the details on immigration from Rubio, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina or others?  Why are they not asked what they will do and how they will accomplish it? Isn't it fair to ask them the same thing?

As to attacking before Rubio does surge, doesn't that make sense tactically? Why let Rubio gain ground where he can take control when you can stop him before that point?

The rhetoric is extreme; the policy will be pragmatic.  If he spells out some system of identifying and hunting down every illegal he will scare the electorate half to death.  If he admits the he like everyone else will only send the newest and the worst of them back, then he loses his edge and his policy falls into the no-gray-area definition you have been using of "supporting amnesty".

I am accusing him of being a typical politician on this.

Wouldn't you agree that we learned a lot about the candidates and also about the advisers they will rely on when we demanded actual tax reform details instead of just the it-will-be-great rhetoric - from all of them.

Speaking of wishy washy people like Ford and Romney, isn't it a waste of our time to follow these people so closely, watch them get questioned, listen for all the subtleties, and then still not get to learn the details of their central reason for running. 

And no, this is not like telling the world your war strategy.


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #641 on: November 04, 2015, 02:36:10 PM »
Here is how to go after illegals once elected.

Day 1

1. Start construction on the Wall. Let everyone know that you are serious.

2. Immediately order real enforcement of the Border. Apprehend and send back anyone crossing immediately.

3. Order customs to develop an immediate plan to investigate and verify status of people applying for entry. This should be expedited and ready to go within three months.

4. Develop logistics for returning to different countries criminal aliens in the US held in prison or who are gang members. Start immediate deportation.

Yes, this will scare the hell out of people and show that the country is serious.


Now, for those who are here illegally but working.

5. First assumption to be made is that they want to stay and to do so legally. If so, then once the legal verification system is in place, have it set up where a person goes across the border, does the paperwork and then can re-enter on successful application. What this does is to encourage them to leave and return and in shortest time possible. The large majority would presumably want to do this.

6. For those who do not want to do this, we make it very difficult for them to continue to work. Current employment measures exist to make sure that people are here legally who want to work, enforce the regulations that require employers to check the person out. If the person cannot work, then he will go across the border and fill out all paperwork so as to return.

7. For those collecting benefits unlawfully, cut off the benefits. They go back or starve. And if they leave and fill out the paperwork to return, they do so knowing that the benefits will not be available to them. So they work or starve.

8. Those that remain are to be found and sent back to whence they came. They don't want to be here legally, then they have no right to be here at all and get sent home.

The key is to set up the programs and then to create a voluntary plan for illegals to follow if they want to be legal. This way, they self deport and do things right. Anyone else, and to hell with them.

As to sitting home or voting for the lesser of two evils, I have done that too many times. And look at the shape of the country based upon this type of voting.

IMO, we are only a few years away from complete collapse anyway. Neither side has the will or determination to do what is needed to correct the current course. So collapse ins inevitable unless something changes dramatically.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results that never come. The results of either Rubio or Hillary will be the same, maybe just taking a bit longer with one or the other. Isn't it time to try something different?

I am running into this same situation right now dealing with the banks, the GSEs and the Regulatory Agencies on mortgage lending issues. They are doing the same things that caused the housing collapse in 2008, in 1993, in 1988 with the S & L's and numerous other times. The problem is that each time, it gets worse and worse. Yet no one wants to do what is necessary to correct the problems because it will be harmful to their own personal interests. The only avenue forward then is to destroy the GSE's, FHA, and the banks and start over again.

So be it with the country..........

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #642 on: November 04, 2015, 07:45:14 PM »
PP,  You and I aren't very far apart on the issues and the common sense plan you propose sounds a lot like what I would expect someone like Rubio, Cruz or Carson to propose if pinned down, Trump too.

"For those collecting benefits unlawfully, cut off the benefits."

Unfortunately I think the benefits they are collecting like free public schools and healthcare for example are legal, so first step there is to make them unlawful.  (Good luck with that.) 

All the emphasis is on employer verification but what about housing?  Is it illegal to rent or sell housing to an illegal to reside in, or (far more likely) is it illegal not to?  Why not crack down on that next?  (Another thing that will never happen.)

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #643 on: November 04, 2015, 08:31:49 PM »
For public schools, the problem is that each school gets to dip into the public trough for each student enrolled. The more students and the more attendance, the more money coming their way. For example, in my city there is the new high school built about 15 years ago. Literally, those from surrounding cities and from Oakland or Richmond over 30 miles away, make arrangements for their kids to attend school here. They claim that the kids live with "family" in the city, and therefore entitled to go to school here. Of course, the school district will not question a thing because it means that they would have to deny enrollment and therefore miss out on the government dollars.

As to the question of legality of non-legal students to attend school here, I am not sure that it is legal. Take the case of someone who is here on a Visa for 6 months and has a kid of school age. Would this impose upon the local district the requirement to educate the student? I don't believe that there is legal requirement under the law.

For hospitals, it is probably a legal requirement. Hospitals face heavy government regulation regarding treating people. Though it may be possible to turn away people if you are a private hospital and the patient does not have insurance or means to pay.  Circumstances will certainly dictate, as well as the DOJ under Obama.

Housing is interesting. Under the law, lenders can only lend to those who are here legally. An illegal would not be allowed to get a loan. Of course, during the housing boom, companies under the GM umbrella like RESCAP ignored the requirement. They would simply not ask for proof of legal residency.

For those renting, there are no legal requirements. But if they haven't a job, credit or other verifiable information, they will not be able to rent, so that should not be an issue.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Seriatim polls vs. Hillary
« Reply #644 on: November 05, 2015, 08:31:06 AM »
As I have mentioned before, the most important poll is the one against the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua. (DEC)

Working from memory, polls reported on FOX showing the following candidates beating DEC.

a) Carson (by 10 points?!)
b) Chris Christie (!) by 4-5
c) Marco Rubio by 4-5
d) Ted Cruz by 3

Losing to DEC was the Donald, by 3.

Again, I may not have the margins right, but am rather sure about the gist of it.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #645 on: November 05, 2015, 09:35:37 AM »
Yes, that is  the Fox poll. But others show him winning against Hillary.

The more important polls are the state pools that show him winning against Hillary in the various states. That is all about the electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.  Watch for the trends there.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Rove: It may take more than one round at the convention
« Reply #646 on: November 05, 2015, 09:37:36 AM »
The Path to a Wild GOP Convention
Primary rules open the possibility that no candidate will win a majority of delegates.
By Karl Rove
Nov. 4, 2015 7:17 p.m. ET

At the past 16 Republican National Conventions, the party’s presidential nominee has been selected on the first ballot. That long streak might end next year. For the first time since 1948, when the GOP nominated Thomas E. Dewey for president after three rounds of voting, Republicans might take more than one ballot to settle on their nominee.

A few factors have increased the chances of a multi-ballot convention. First, Republicans have the largest field of serious contenders in history: 17 candidates entered the race and 15 remain. The bigger the field, the longer it could take to settle the contest.

Five candidates are polling as asterisks in the Real Clear Politics average: Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George Pataki and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. It’s hard to imagine them breaking out.

Another five candidates are polling at less than 5% on average but have enough money or stage presence to last at least through February’s Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary. They are: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. They might not endure past the early contests unless they dramatically beat expectations.

That leaves five contenders who today appear to have the message, money, organization and poll numbers to play the long game: neurosurgeon Ben Carson, real-estate magnate Donald Trump, Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

What complicates the picture is the GOP’s rule requiring the 28 jurisdictions (states, territories and the District of Columbia) that vote before March 15 to award their delegates proportionally. The exception is South Carolina, whose winner-take-all primary was grandfathered in. Add in the eight states voting on or after March 15 that also award their delegates proportionally, and some 60% of the convention’s likely total of 2,470 will be allotted that way.

Of these delegates awarded on a proportional basis, some states require a candidate to hit a floor—say, 20% or 15% of the vote. Others have lower thresholds or none at all. For example, Iowa’s 30 delegates will be divvied up proportionately with no minimum, meaning candidates win a delegate for each 3.3% of the vote they receive. The upshot is that by mid-March the top three or four candidates may be separated by only a small number of delegates, giving the leader a plurality, not a majority.

Then comes the Ides of March, when winner-take-all contests kick off. On March 15 five states and one territory, awarding 361 delegates, will vote. Of these, 292 will be winner-take-all. This day could play a critical role in culling the field. The four final March contests that follow could cut the contenders to two.

The survivors will move on to scattered contests throughout April and May—the exception being April 26, when five northeastern states vote, with Pennsylvania’s 71 delegates as the big prize. The final primaries will be held June 7, when 294 delegates, all but 21 chosen by winner-take-all, will be at stake. California and New Jersey will dominate that day.

Still, with only around 40% of the delegates chosen in winner-take-all contests, they may be splintered enough that no candidate commands an outright majority. A complicating factor is that roughly 8% of the delegates will arrive at the convention unbound, free to vote for their choice of candidate. The delegates from Wyoming (29), North Dakota (28) and Guam (9) will be officially uncommitted, as will all but 14 of Pennsylvania’s 71 delegates.

Moreover, GOP rules allow for the creation of “superdelegates,” with more than half of state parties exercising the option to make their chairman, national committeewoman and national committeeman automatic delegates. These uncommitted delegates, 210 in all, could be the most fluid force in the convention if no candidate has locked in victory.

It is unlikely that the GOP will reprise 1880, when it took 36 ballots to nominate James A. Garfield, who wasn’t even a candidate when the convention began. But it is possible that the nomination will still be up for grabs when the GOP convention opens on July 18, and that delegates could need more than one ballot to select the party’s candidate. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. After all, Republicans took three ballots in 1860 to pick a fellow named Lincoln.

Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is the author of “The Triumph of William McKinley: Why the 1896 Election Still Matters,” out Nov. 24 from Simon & Schuster.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #647 on: November 05, 2015, 10:42:14 AM »
Thank you for posing this. This is the beginning of the Road Map for having Bush or Rubio as the nominee which was created by Rove and the GOPe.  And the plan was for a Wild Convention based upon Bush initially having only 25% support levels.

1. Notice the 210 super delegates. These are all GOPe insiders. Guess where they will go............Bush/Rubio.

2. Any candidate without 8 primary wins cannot be placed into nomination at the convention. Their delegates are released to go to whomever they chose. Usually, they will follow the GOPe lead.

3. How many candidates have a realistic chance of getting 8 wins at this time? Trump, maybe Carson, and Rubio. Take out Trump and then add Cruz.

4. Watch for Rule 40 changes during the convention. If Trump or Carson have been the only ones to have met the 8 win requirement, Rule 40 changes will allow the requirement to be waved so that Bush or Rubio can be put into nomination. Then they can get the at large and released delegates.

This is why I expect Rubio to be the nominee (or Bush if he can turn it around). The GOPe has the ability to manipulate the outcome and that is why Rove wrote this article. He is prepping everyone for just this event.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #648 on: November 05, 2015, 01:00:39 PM »
Okay. I absolutely surrender trying to figure out the polls. There are not enough internals given to understand what is really going on. For example, today comes the Elon University Poll of North Carolina. 

Carson 31 and Trump 19

But the week before, PPP finds:

Trump 31 and Carson 23

The differences are all coming from the assumptions that are being made about the electorate. Depending upon the assumptions, the results are going to be different.

Guess the real polling is looking at the crowds at rallys............
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #649 on: November 05, 2015, 02:33:21 PM »
Polling is notoriously inaccurate this early.  We are looking for trends but just finding things are still bouncing around.  This race is very fluid.  If I was the presumed frontrunner, I would be quite nervous about that.   )