Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471238 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Morris
« Reply #750 on: November 19, 2015, 06:29:14 PM »
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on November 19, 2015
In the wake of the ISIS Paris attacks, Donald Trump has moved to a clear lead over Ben Carson and the rest of the GOP field.

Carson's laid back style and his reluctance to use force against terrorism -- he said that he would not have sent troop stop Afghanistan after 9/11 -- is costing him support in the post-Paris, post-debate polling.

In the six polls before the November 10th GOP debate and the Paris attacks on November 13th, Trump and Carson were tied at an average of 24 points each.  In two poll since -- by Bloomberg and PPP -- Trump averages 25% while Carson fades to 20%.

In the aftermath of the debate and the terror attacks, Cruz and Rubio have both gained with the Texan doubling his vote share from an average of only 6% beforehand to 12% afterwards. Rubio also rose, but only from 11% to 12.5%.

Bush continues to languish in the second tier.  Before the debate/attacks, he registered 6% in national polls and he has stayed there after them.

The surveys confirm the view that the race has boiled down to the final four: Trump, Carson, Rubio and Cruz.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #751 on: November 20, 2015, 07:16:34 AM »
For the record, here is how it stands for me right now:

Regarding Carson, I continue to have liking for him but I have given him more than enough time to display foreign affairs chops and feel that he has come up short; likewise with his ability to make his case on various other policy issues in a way that could stand up to and defeat Hillary.   If I had to vote today, he would be my third choice with Cruz and Rubio tied at first and second. 

In sorting out who gets my vote and admittedly tiny financial backing I will be placing great weight on who polls better one-on-one versus Hillary.

Again, this is only a snap shot.  My thoughts remain as before-- quite fluid.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Who could have seen this coming? GOPe vs. Trump
« Reply #752 on: November 20, 2015, 03:28:10 PM »
GOP Operative Plans ‘Guerrilla Campaign’ Against Donald Trump
Move comes as growing number of Republicans fear damage to party’s image and ‘Hillary Clinton will become president’
By Beth Reinhard And
Janet Hook
Updated Nov. 20, 2015 3:36 p.m. ET
WSJ

The Republican establishment, increasingly alarmed by the enduring strength of Donald Trump’s presidential bid, is ratcheting up efforts to knock him out of the race, including the first attempt to unite donors from rival camps into a single anti-Trump force.


A well-connected GOP operative is planning a “guerrilla campaign” backed by secret donors to “defeat and destroy” the celebrity businessman’s candidacy, according to a memo obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

A super PAC supporting Ohio Gov. John Kasich is airing a series of ads attacking him. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush struck with his bluntest attacks yet on Friday, and the Club for Growth, an economic conservative group, plans to resume attack ads that it has run in Iowa against Mr. Trump.

Together, the efforts seem to represent a turning point in the Republican contest, in which other campaigns have previously been skittish about taking on Mr. Trump so directly. The sense of urgency has mounted in part because Mr. Trump continues at or near the top of GOP polls, even after many predicted that the Paris terrorist attacks would lead voters to turn to a more seasoned candidate.

The most concerted effort is Trump Card LLC, the guerilla campaign being launched by Liz Mair, the former online communications director of the Republican National Committee.

“In the absence of our efforts, Trump is exceedingly unlikely to implode or be forced out of the race,” according to the Trump Card memo. “The stark reality is that unless something dramatic and unconventional is done, Trump will be the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton will become president.”

Opposition research, grass-roots organizing and donor outreach has been going on for weeks, Ms. Mair said, while declining to name any backers. “It’s loosely organized and highly confidential,” she said. “I certainly know donors who are very happy that their fingerprints will be kept off things.”

Asked about Ms. Mair’s campaign on Friday, Mr. Trump declined to respond in detail, but said through his spokeswoman Hope Hicks that Ms. Mair “worked for Scott Walker and lost her job—who can blame her?”

Ms. Mair worked briefly for Wisconsin Gov. Walker while he ran for president, but quit after her pre-campaign postings disparaging Iowans were unearthed.

As a limited liability company, Trump Card LLC wouldn’t have to disclose its donors to the Federal Election Commission. Viveca Novak, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, said she was aware of no restrictions on the kinds of political activities that could be funded through an LLC. “Anyone can set one up,” she said. “You don’t know who is behind it.”

Ms. Mair, who has ties to the libertarian movement and the GOP establishment, said that donors backing Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Mr. Kasich and Mr. Bush are interested, and that some worry that going public could hurt their candidate.

Rick Wilson, a Republican media consultant, said in an interview that he is prepared to make ads for the new group. Mr. Wilson isn’t involved in fundraising but predicted that a number of Republican donors will start bankrolling an anti-Trump effort.

“People are finally taking the threat that Trump will destroy the Republican Party and lose the general election to Hillary Clinton seriously,” said Mr. Wilson, who recently started working for a new super PAC backing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

The super PAC supporting Mr. Kasich, New Day for America, on Thursday began airing a series of ads that show Mr. Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson while invoking the Nov. 13 Paris terrorist attacks. “On-the-job training for president does not work,” an ad says.

Mr. Trump responded by threatening to sue the super PAC. “John Kasich should focus his special-interest money on building up his failed image, not negative ads on me,” Mr. Trump said in a stream of posts on Twitter.

Mr. Bush, on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Friday, criticized Mr. Trump’s proposals to tighten U.S. security with measures such as closing mosques. Mr. Trump also recently seemed to endorse setting up a Muslim registration database, but backed away from that on Friday.

“You talk about closing mosques, you talk about registering people, that’s just wrong,” Mr. Bush said. “It’s manipulating people’s angst and their fears. That’s not strength, that’s weakness.”

The new anti-Trump effort is planning a more direct and blunt approach than previous efforts. The group’s memo said it would be pitching opposition research to media in early-voting states, as well as radio and television ads and Web videos that attract media attention based on their “outrageousness and boundary-breaking or bizarre nature.”

One possible ad would link Mr. Trump’s views and style to his celebrity foe, Rosie O’Donnell, in hopes of provoking a reaction from Mr. Trump, according to the memo.

Other possible tactics include fake pro-Trump ads that show him supporting socialized medicine, seizing property through eminent domain and taking other positions that stray from GOP orthodoxy; using a Trump impersonator to show him insulting people; and attacking his business record in “stark, nasty terms.”

The goal, according to the memo, isn’t to covert Mr. Trump’s supporters into backing other candidates, but to dissuade them from voting altogether, especially in New Hampshire’s influential first-in-the-nation primary.

For financing, the memo said the group is seeking $250,000 from donors in multiple GOP presidential camps.

Ms. Mair helped lead the online media campaign for 2008 Republican nominee John McCain while at the RNC, and advised presidential candidate Carly Fiorina during her 2010 Senate race.

Until Mr. Kasich’s super PAC ads, there has been little paid advertising attacking Mr. Trump. That is in part because donors have been reluctant to invest in such efforts, because they assumed that his candidacy would fizzle on its own.

Some candidates, such as Mr. Cruz, have been reluctant to attack Mr. Trump because they hope to inherit his supporters if and when his candidacy fades. Others candidates willing to criticize him, including Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, have either remained at the back of the pack or dropped out of the race.

Club for Growth, which also doesn’t disclose its donors, earlier this fall spent $1 million on anti-Trump ads that ran for three weeks in Iowa. The ads attacked Mr. Trump’s positions on taxes, trade and other issues that the group said exposed him as a liberal—a contention that Mr. Trump denied.

Doug Sachtelben, a Club for Growth spokesman, said they believed the ads contributed to a drop in Mr. Trump’s standing in Iowa polls in early October, when Mr. Carson rose to first place in several surveys.

Mr. Sachtelben said the group hoped to run more ads like that in Iowa and New Hampshire but couldn’t say when.

“We’re still in the fundraising stage,” he said.

Write to Beth Reinhard at beth.reinhard@wsj.com and Janet Hook at janet.hook@wsj.com
 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
FOX poll one-on-one vs. Hillary
« Reply #753 on: November 22, 2015, 10:04:25 AM »
THIS is what should have our attention!!!

Rubio
40 to 42

Bush
45-39

Carson
47-42

Trump
46-41

Cruz
45-41

Christie
46-43

Firorina
42-42

DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #754 on: November 22, 2015, 10:27:50 AM »
I hope Trump wins it. His attitude is exactly what America needs....not an apologetic one.

If he was saying the same things he's saying, but another color, and in any country, he'd be being cheered and everyone knows it.

It's high time the majority attitude of society is changed. That usually requires use of force.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #755 on: November 22, 2015, 11:01:21 AM »
DDF...

Hear! Hear!

Glad to know that there is other support for Trump here.

The Fox Poll that CD just posted is now being born out across the board in Trump v Hillary match ups and the small sample polls are now showing Trump at 10% over his closest rivals. And of most interest, the media polls are showing Trump increasing his lead.  No matter what type of "take down" of Trump is attempted, it fails. And....after each attempt, Trump appears to gather more strength.

CD (this may not apply to you), I heard a couple of reliable sources say that those who are against Trump have lost in the "he won't run" argument, then the "he will drop in support" argument, and now they go to the "head to head" argument. It shall be interesting to see what the new arguments will be.

Barbara Walters had a very good interview of Trump and his family Friday night. It showed the "real" Trump and not just the "campaign trail" Trump. I can only see the inverview helping him.

Why Trump is getting such support is that there is a "reaction" to the Obama Years and the PC cultural that has persisted in the country for decades. The "common person" is fed up with it, with the Occupy and BLM movements, and all the other b.s. They are looking for someone who speaks for them, which has not occurred probably since Gingrich.

We do live in interesting times.....
PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #756 on: November 22, 2015, 12:33:32 PM »
I'd like to live in peace.

The unfortunate problem is, that so many of the liberals have zero problem trampling people's rights (including the right to even be racist or bigoted), all the while telling everyone else that they must be fined $100,000 dollars for refusing to make a cake, telling people who they have to serve, who they have to live with, how they have to defne marriage, that they have to vaccinate their children, that hey're privileged for being born a certain color, ad nauseum.

They really are starting to sound like they need their own utopia.

I say, let's give it to them.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Arthur Laffer on best tax plans
« Reply #757 on: November 23, 2015, 09:12:16 AM »
The Paul And Cruz Flat Tax Plans Are Best Tax Proposals

    - only if they win.

As we've cheerfully noted on these pages, the good news on the presidential campaign trail is that almost all Republicans are now for serious pro-growth tax reform and simplification. Every candidate wants lower rates (some a one-rate flat tax), fewer loopholes and carve-outs, and a reduced role for an abusive IRS.

    - That was also true in 2012, Cain's 9-9-9. Romney's plan, etc.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-brain-trust/112015-781892-paul-and-cruz-flat-tax-proposals-best-candidate-tax-plans.htm#ixzz3sKqJB7Vn


You have to win to enact tax reform.  Critics of these plans (at the link) are right about the dangers they open for future tax abuse.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, favorability ratings, PPP
« Reply #759 on: November 24, 2015, 08:28:29 AM »
That ABC Washington Post poll (Trump thread) was the most recent I could find with candidate favorability data.  Here is another, PPP.  First I re-post our PP's view of polling organization PPP:
"PPP, which is owned by a Dem/Clinton supporter"

My disclaimer, I don't believe any of them in absolute numbers but we are looking for trends, patterns, relative strengths and relative weaknesses as compared to other candidates.

In this one, PPP 11/19/2015, they all have pretty low ratings.  They're all politicians now.
------------------------------

Barack Obama approval  43-52, -9

Jeb Bush        22-55, -33
Ben Carson     40-40, even
Hillary Clinton  39-53, -14
Ted Cruz        33-45, -12
Carly Fiorina    31-41, -10
Marco Rubio    39-37, +2
Bernie Sanders 31-49, -18
Donald Trump  34-55, -21

In the matchups, Rubio beats Clinton by 2, the only one to beat her. Clinton beats Trump by 1, Cruz by 2, Carson by 2.  Not very significant.
It possibly shows how few votes there are to chase in the middle.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_111915.pdf

It's still early.  All polls are flawed.  Still we need every point we can get.  Any 3-4 point lift in a close election makes a big difference on the electoral map.  More important to me is which candidate with a good campaign could turn this into a blowout and which ones will always be polarizing.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 08:30:29 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #760 on: November 24, 2015, 08:37:04 AM »
If you looked at the Trump thread, the WAPO poll had a   23% Republican Sample, 33% was Dem with the rest Independent.

How can anyone trust a poll using a 23% Rep sample?
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #761 on: November 24, 2015, 08:51:35 AM »
Interesting that the PPP sample used 44% Rep and 39% Dem.

Yet when you look at the match ups, the Rep/Dem divide does not show up. In fact, it would appear that 17% not mentioned, likely Independents, break heavily towards Hillary.

Wonder what other non-disclosed parameters existed with this poll?
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #762 on: November 24, 2015, 09:12:08 AM »
If you looked at the Trump thread, the WAPO poll had a   23% Republican Sample, 33% was Dem with the rest Independent.

How can anyone trust a poll using a 23% Rep sample?

'Republican' is not a very popular brand name.  Neither is 'Democrat'.  But the questions force people answering to make choices.

Also, there is no money to be made in early detailed polling, so as you suggest, some organizations are doing it as part of an agenda.

If the agenda here is to support Hillary, they aren't doing a very good job. 

Still these polls are uncovering relative strengths and weaknesses.  Trump and Cruz are the most polarizing.  They are the first choice or only choice of their strongest supporters, but the same strong rhetoric drove up their disapprovals with the rest.

In the end, if she's not indicted, convicted or hanged, Hillary's dishonesty will be pushed mostly to the side and people will vote on issues and direction.  Republicans will need to put their very best foot forward if they want to step on her. 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #763 on: November 24, 2015, 01:27:50 PM »
Interesting report from CNBC. 

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/24/voters-would-show-up-if-trump-is-on-2016-ballot.html

Quote
No matter what party affiliation you consider, Trump brings them out. Republicans, Democrats and independents are all most likely to show up if Trump is on the ballot. (In our analysis, we assumed a constant variable: the Democrats nominating Hillary Clinton.)

Not only do they show up to vote, but they vote for Trump. He's got the highest percentage of voters — across both parties and independents.

This part is telling.........Trump will get cross over votes last seen with Reagan.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #764 on: November 24, 2015, 05:56:24 PM »
Now that IS interesting!

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #765 on: November 24, 2015, 06:31:00 PM »
I be telling you this :evil: :evil:

Trump is pulling support from the Dems in droves. You don't see it because most polling is in the primary portion, and when it is national, the partisan representation is skewed to the Dems because they are using 2014 voter stats and with Romney, at least 4% of expected voters did not go to the polls.

If you really want to get a feel for the "new" Trump, you should watch his current rallies. He is becoming more polished every day.....
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #766 on: November 24, 2015, 06:39:08 PM »
We live in interesting times!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #767 on: November 27, 2015, 09:58:10 AM »
At this point in the 2012 cycle, through about the second week of December, Newt Gingrich was the front runner.

What that means for this year is - - -  I have no idea!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #768 on: November 27, 2015, 11:46:29 PM »
Reuters Ipsos, Trump down 12 points in one week.
Lib poll, under sampled R's, previous poll was an outlier, etc.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0TG2AN20151127?utm_source=Facebook

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #769 on: November 28, 2015, 08:25:38 AM »
Good morning Doug!

I have been waiting for you to post this.  Love your reasons for not believing the poll. But let's look at it from another perspective.

Reuters uses a 5 Day Rolling Average to arrive at the new daily numbers. So what does that tell us with this poll?


                           N16          N17       N18       N19      N20       N21     N22       N23       N24       N25      N26        N27

Trump                 37.6           35.8     36.2       36.6      35.8      36.0      32.0     32.0       33        30.0      28.0       35.0

Cruz                     11.2           11.2      11.3      10.0       11.3     12.6      18        19          20        19         19         13

Carson                15.4            15.9     16.7       16.7      17.1     17.4      17        12.7       12.2       9.2        9.4          10

Rubio             14              13.8     13.5       13.3      12.9      11.6     12.1      12.5       11.9      16         15            14

Jeb                      5.1              5.2       5.1         5.1       5.1        4.5      5.3        7.2         7.7        8.3        9            11


Sample                636             697      687        660       550       328     237      222         199       182        178        165


1. The sample size daily dropped from 697 down to 165. The smaller the sample, the greater the "weighting" of the poll. Weighting adds significant biases and increases the margin of error on small sized polls.

2.  For Trump, on Nov 21 and N 22, a 4% point drop occurs, down to 32%.  The Nov 22 sample was a much greater drop than 4%, since with a rolling average, the drop also had to take into account the previous 4 days at 36%. For N22 to be at 32%, then the actual daily results were about 20%. Add in that the sample was 237 people for the day, and you have a major issue with the poll.  (The reserve happened for Cruz that day, going from 12.6 to 18%.)

3. Look at N26 and N27, you see the same issue pop up again, based upon a 165 person sample.

Obviously, the sample size is a major determinate, along with the weighting used. Add to this that the polling is occurring during a holiday week which is generally accepted to cause reliability issues, and the results become circumspect, especially when looking at the N27 response where Trump jumped back up to 35%.

I would simply toss this week results out the window and only consider results beginning about the end of next week as being more reliable indicators, provided that sample size increases significantly.

(If not for the N27 increase in Trump's numbers to 35%, I would have looked at the results a bit differently, wondering if Trumpisms had finally caught up with him, though I would have wanted to see more daily polling to reach any conclusion.)
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #770 on: November 28, 2015, 10:04:44 AM »
Found out what happened with the Reuters Poll.  They did a "correction (weighting)" to the statistical model after Trump started hitting over 40%. This dragged it down for a couple of days, but is beginning to correct.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Dowd, NYT
« Reply #771 on: November 30, 2015, 07:05:28 AM »
Maureen Dowd NYT has a smart family.  Who knew.  Here is her brother reporting at Thanksgiving.  Best Maureen Dowd column ever.  BTW, she has slipped a little herself off of the Hillary bandwagon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/29/opinion/king-kevin-versus-queen-cersei.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

While liberals and the mainstream media may regard the myriad Republican presidential candidates as a “house of crazies,” I see an embarrassment of riches. It is the ultimate irony that the Republican field blows the Democrats away on one of their favorite topics —

Here’s how I see the Republican contest and the Democratic coronation:

Donald Trump: With all his bombast and incivility, Trump has joyfully debunked political correctness for the complete fraud that it is. With his talent for making debate ratings soar, he has allowed all the other candidates to be seen and heard at celestial levels unreachable without him. He has touched a nerve because people are fed up with liberal groups being offended at every slight, real or imagined. (I can assure you none of these people were taught by Jesuits.) Three Ivy League schools are currently under siege, with students at Princeton demanding the removal of Woodrow Wilson’s name from a building. Washington and Jefferson are up next as former slave owners, leaving Al Sharpton as the default “father of our country.” We are tired of apologies for America’s exceptionalism.

Ben Carson: Not since Eisenhower has a complete novice politician been so legitimate a contender. Can he avoid the traps set for him by the media? He presents intriguing possibilities as part of the ticket, forcing African-Americans to choose between him and the wife of the man Toni Morrison called our “first black president.”

Marco Rubio: Young, whip smart and self-assured, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of foreign affairs and is a stunning contrast to Hillary Clinton both in generation and vision. Wait until he starts delivering his speeches in Spanish.

Ted Cruz: The Hispanic heir apparent to Barry Goldwater had the best moment in the third debate, calling out an obscure cable TV host looking for his 10 minutes of fame.

Jeb Bush: I like the Bushes, all of them. Jeb would have been the perfect Republican candidate from 1988 to 2000. In this age of instant gratification, his wonkish grasp of policy does not move the needle. Too bad.

Chris Christie: Trump with better manners. A certain pick for attorney general if this gig does not work out.

Contrast our informed candidates with the Democratic lineup of Queen Cersei, the socialist Doc Brown from “Back to the Future” and the lead singer of O’Malley’s March. I keep waiting for Martin O’Malley during debates to whip out his guitar for a few Irish songs. It would be more entertaining.

Clinton: She’s seeking the highest office in the land even though 60 percent of the country does not trust her and her emails are currently under F.B.I. review for potential national security breaches.

Bernie Sanders: His proposals for free health care, free college and expanded Social Security have a price tag of $18 trillion with no way to pay for it. Not even a candidate for budget director.

The next president will have to deal with a severely weakened hand, at home and abroad. The bill for “leading from behind” has come due. After the Radical Islam (dare I say thy name?) attack on France, the president who called ISIS “contained” was left to issue his familiar disclaimer that Islam is a religion of peace. In dealing with foes, Clinton, in a 2014 speech at Georgetown University, called for “trying to understand, and insofar as is psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective.” Note to Hillary: Any enemy with beheading as a menu item does not deserve empathy.

A peeved President Obama lashed out at Republicans for daring to pass a bill asking for a more robust screening process for the Syrian refugees. His adviser, Ben Rhodes — the political hack behind the deceitful Benghazi talking points — assured us that our screening was airtight even as 47 Democrats voted for the bill. The president has been forced to face the inconvenient truth that others will lead the world in this battle while he continues his lonely quest against the world’s “greatest threat”: climate change.

Our enemies do not fear us, and authority at home is being questioned by a disgraceful campaign since Ferguson to undermine the police. I am the son of a policeman, and a police officer is killed in the line of duty every 60 hours. The thin blue line is the only thing that separates our society from anarchy. There will be awful shootings by police officers like the one in Chicago, but these are exceptions. My dad told me that any job where you can legally carry a gun will occasionally draw the wrong type of person. Police officers certainly do not deserve to see the media turning criminals into celebrated victims. The next time you see a police officer, say thank you.

So, ask yourself three questions: Do you want a president who refuses to name the enemy? Who do you want to appoint the next three Supreme Court justices? And who will protect the homeland and honor the Constitution? Then pray that you got it right.

« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 09:39:34 AM by Crafty_Dog »

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1060
    • View Profile
Herman Cain Slams Jeb Bush, Defends Trump...
« Reply #772 on: December 01, 2015, 06:23:12 AM »

Published by: Herman Cain on Monday November 30th, 2015
Herman Cain

Big talk from Mr. 5.5 percent.

Someone should tell Jeb Bush that I’ve accepted an invitation to speak at Donald Trump’s rally this coming Monday in Georgia. I accepted for a simple reason: He asked. But Gov. Bush seems weirdly interested these days in the connection – if only in his own mind – between what he thinks happened to me and what he thinks is going to happen to Trump.

I’ve heard this one before, of course. Herman Cain was leading the 2012 primary race only to “flame out,” and the same thing is going to happen to Trump. This is how Bush tried to reassure disappointed supporters this past Monday, invoking “the fall of Herman Cain”:

Jeb Bush cited the rise and fall of 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain as he sought to reassure supporters at a Longboat Key fundraiser Monday that their faith in him is well placed.

By noting that Cain led in the polls at this point in 2012 only to flame out, Bush implied that current GOP front-runners Donald Trump and Ben Carson could follow the same path.

I’m sure his supporters were really reassured by this. Hey, don’t worry that I’m way behind and gaining no ground whatsoever, but there was once this one guy who led and didn’t win.

So let’s talk about this. In late October 2011, the polls had me leading the Republican race for president with 24 percent. After that, of course, I was the target of accusations that I’ve already explained were complete B.S., and you can read about that if you want to here. This precipitated my fall in the polls to the point where, by late November, I was in third place and polling at 14 percent. This is when I decided to leave the race because the turn it had taken was imposing too much hardship on my family.

But there’s a reason I bring up these numbers. At the height of my campaign I was in first place at 24 percent. Even when I left the race I was in third place at 14 place. Who am I? A guy who ran a pizza company and had a successful corporate career before hosting a talk show in Atlanta. I was not anonymous but I was hardly famous.

Who is Jeb Bush? He is the former governor of Florida and he has one of the most famous political last names in America. He has more political money behind him than any candidate in this race with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton. And how is he doing in the polls? The current Real Clear Politics average shows him in fifth place at 5.5 percent.

If you want to say I had a “fall,” go ahead, I guess. You can’t fall when you’ve never gotten any higher than the floor in the first place, and that’s the state of the Jeb Bush campaign. A guy with his name, his money and the team behind him should be one of the top-tier contenders, and he should certainly not be letting Donald Trump wipe the floor with him if Trump is as unserious and unqualified as Bush would have you believe.


And yet, Jeb Bush can’t break out of the middle single-digits.

As for the suggestion that Donald Trump and Ben Carson will surely flame out because Herman Cain did, you’ll probably not be surprised that I’m getting a little tired of that one. But I would tell you two things.

First, I was and remain proud of what my campaign accomplished. No, we didn’t get to the finish line, but most of the people who run me down have never gotten anywhere near as far as we did – and as I mentioned above, that certainly includes Jeb Bush.

Second, it’s a different year, and Donald Trump is a different guy. I realize that the Bush political cabal may see all icky outsiders as the same, and thus assume that all will have the same fate. I wouldn’t bet on that. Trump is very smart, has done his homework and has learned a lot from what happened in many previous campaigns – including mine. He’s stayed atop the polls a lot longer than I did, and his rivals haven’t accomplished much by sitting around invoking whatever it is that they think happened to me.

But if I were to give Jeb Bush a piece of advice – not that he probably thinks he needs any from me – it would be to focus on coming up with a rationale for a Jeb Bush presidency. To date, I haven’t heard one that’s got many people very excited. And to judge from the polls, 94.5 percent of Republican primary voters agree with me.

Even if Trump does come back to the pack at some point, there are other candidates much better positioned to pick up support because they’re much more appealing than Mr. Famous Political Name. And really, when you haven’t come anywhere close to what some pizza guy once did, you sound pretty desperate trying to use the pizza guy as your defense.

At least I was once winning. Jeb Bush has been doing nothing but losing throughout this entire campaign. His problem is him.
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - Quinnipiac
« Reply #773 on: December 02, 2015, 07:57:13 AM »
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2015/12/01/watch-megyn-kelly-n2087464

Trump 27, Rubio 17, Cruz 16, Carson 16, all others 5 or less.

Dems win in general election matchups (Dems oversampled?). 
Rubio   -1
Carson -3
Cruz    -5
Trump -6

The relative differences between these candidates and the presumptive Dem nominee have been quite consistent.

If I wanted the most conservative nominee to prove a point, I would pick Cruz.

If I wanted the one who draws the biggest crowd, biggest audience, most attention, I would pick Trump.

If I wanted the best chance to win the election and turn the country around, I would pick Rubio.

If I was single issue against illegal immigration, for border control around all of that, I would pick the one with the best chance to win over Hillary.

If I cared about the next 4 decades of governance by the judiciary, I would be scared to death of letting Hillary nominate the next 3-5 Supreme Court Justices, especially with the Senate vulnerable to go back to the Dems.  I would choose the candidate most likely to defeat her.

Unless the facts change, it's kind of a simple choice.

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1060
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #774 on: December 02, 2015, 08:29:48 AM »
I don't for a moment believe these polls.  Something is amiss here.  I simply do not believe that a majority of voters would choose Hillary over Trump or Cruz or Rubio, not even over Carson.  The organization(s) doing these polls are either being lied to, or have serious flaws in their methodology.

Rubio is an establishment Republican and will not change much.  There is a good reason the lobbyists are overwhelmingly supporting Hillary and Rubio.  That is NOT a good thing for the future of the country.  Further - I don't trust Rubio on immigration.  He is for sale to the highest bidding donors and lobbyists.  We have seen his naivite and willingess to go along with the establishment Gang of Eight.  Not a good choice.
"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 #775 on: December 02, 2015, 09:00:20 AM »
The Q poll is only one of two polls that shows Hillary beating all Reps. All other polls either show a time or in most cases, the Rep beating Hillary, and in huge numbers. Even the NBC polls are showing Reps beating Hillary.

Q has been the most out of line poll of all the polls being done. It appears to under poll on Trump by about 10 points and over polls on Rubio significantly as compared to other polls.
What might be in effect with this poll is the "holiday factor". Polls done during holiday periods are well known for being significantly wrong.
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #776 on: December 02, 2015, 09:08:52 AM »
"I simply do not believe that a majority of voters would choose Hillary over Trump or Cruz or Rubio,"

I hope your right Objectivist, but I am not so sure.




DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #777 on: December 02, 2015, 09:40:22 AM »
My humble opinion:

Rubio is an "establishment Republican" because he has been accused of that?  I would not like to take on all the labels I have been accused of being.  I wouldn't even want to list them here.

The establishment begged Rubio to not run against establishment incumbent Governor Charlie Crist for Senate in Florida, 2010.

The establishment begged Rubio to not run against Jeb Bush for the nomination Jan-March of this year.  That is standing up to them recently.

Rubio's position now on border security proven first before negotiating further does not match the wishes of his so-called establishment puppet masters.  It matches the will of the people and the state of the congress, not the wished of the chamber of commerce or whoever.

Nothing about him looks like a man controlled by his donors.  He looks like a man who lives and breathes for limited government, national security and individual liberty.

All the commercials running here right now are for Ted Cruz.  Big PAC, Texas money, but he's not a puppet either.  Trump gets his publicity without spending money - so far.  The one with the biggest money in this race will be Hillary.  Being able to attract large donors based on the quality of your message and your candidacy is a good thing IMHO.  Selling out to them is not.

I understand the fear of donor control over a young candidate on the way up who relies on others instead of himself to make decisions.  I don't get how someone who wins an office often called leader of the free world on his own merits and talents is beholden to anything other than doing what he promised to do.  He has bigger things to do than donor payback.  Defeat ISIS, get his economic agenda through congress and persuade the American people to support it.  Appoint judges.  Repeal executive orders.  Talk to the American people.

Rubio isn't running for payback to contributors, a zero sum game.  Nor is Cruz.  Hillary... well that's different, they already have a game going.


OTOH, that you don't trust him on immigration is a valid concern that he will have to overcome.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #778 on: December 02, 2015, 09:51:52 AM »
The Q poll is only one of two polls that shows Hillary beating all Reps. All other polls either show a time or in most cases, the Rep beating Hillary, and in huge numbers. Even the NBC polls are showing Reps beating Hillary.

Q has been the most out of line poll of all the polls being done. It appears to under poll on Trump by about 10 points and over polls on Rubio significantly as compared to other polls.
What might be in effect with this poll is the "holiday factor". Polls done during holiday periods are well known for being significantly wrong.

All polls have sampling problems.  In the only recent poll where Trump leads Hillary, Rubio leads her by more.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/11/20/fox-news-poll-2016-matchups-syrian-refugees/

DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #779 on: December 02, 2015, 12:02:31 PM »
"I simply do not believe that a majority of voters would choose Hillary over Trump or Cruz or Rubio,"

I hope your right Objectivist, but I am not so sure.





I had a liberal finally admit to me (after cornering them with facts as to whether the Constitution mattered or not), that they simply didn't care if Obama was an American and still would have voted for him.

There comes a point when we finally have to admit, that at a minimum, there are two perspectives in which direction the American future should take. People no longer share common values, and Americans are NOT united, not at all.

This will end badly for someone. It remains to be seen as to who it will end badly for.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2015, 10:10:21 AM by DDF »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: NRO on Cruz vs. Rubio
« Reply #781 on: December 02, 2015, 01:56:06 PM »
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427854/marco-rubio-ted-cruz-split-conservatives

Other than the small matter of getting Trump and Carson out of the lead, this article accurately sums up the race. (IMHO)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
WSJ: Reps various POVs on foreign policies
« Reply #782 on: December 04, 2015, 06:12:02 AM »
The spreading threat of terrorism is exacerbating a schism in the Republican 2016 presidential field, pitting hawkish candidates against those urging restraint in what could be the most robust foreign-policy debate in years.

Their arguments are taking on a fresh sense of urgency after the mass shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. Although questions remain about the perpetrators’ motives, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Thursday directly linked the event with killings elsewhere in the world, saying he was “convinced” it was a terrorist attack.

“We need to come to grips with the idea that we are in the midst of the next world war,” the former U.S. attorney told hundreds of members of the Republican Jewish Coalition gathered a few blocks from the White House.

The resurgence of interest in national security has put a finer point on the candidates’ world views—from the anti-interventionism of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul to the more aggressive stances of Mr. Christie, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and others.

The downing of a Russian plane over Egypt, the attacks in Paris, and—perhaps—the California shootings are giving voters growing reason to consider national security as central to the choice of the next president. That raises a tricky political issue because, while Americans may be fearful and anxious, there is no obvious consensus about what the U.S. role should be.
In a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition, Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson recounted his recent trip to Israel and stated his support for actions it has taken to defend itself amid violence in the Middle East. Photo:AP

On the hawkish end of the spectrum, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has called for a big military expansion. He argued at the GOP Jewish forum that the U.S. military withdrawal from the Middle East has destabilized the region and made the U.S. less secure. He wants to increase the Pentagon budget to add some 40,000 soldiers to the Army and rebuild the naval and air fleets.

Mr. Christie has been trying to boost his stature by focusing on his experience as a prosecutor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He was first nominated for the position by former President George W. Bush the day before the attacks and used the Patriot Act to prosecute terrorism-related crimes as the state’s top prosecutor. He criticized Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Mr. Paul for voting for legislation earlier this year to end a National Security Agency program to collect the phone records of millions of Americans.

Mr. Cruz recently accused Mr. Rubio of advocating “military adventurism.” Mr. Rubio Thursday took a veiled swipe back at Mr. Cruz, as well as Mr. Paul, for supporting legislation that would cut military spending and international aid. Without naming his Senate colleagues, Mr. Rubio took his rivals to task for opposing a bill authorizing funding for the “Iron Dome” missile shield that protects Israel.


“I believe those who speak about their pro-Israel views but carelessly support a gutting of our international affairs budget, including assistance to Israel, or who vote against legislation funding U.S.-Israel defense programs, need to check their priorities,” Mr. Rubio said. “You cannot be pro-Israel while also attempting to eliminate assistance that Israel uses to defend itself.”

Mr. Rubio also has criticized Messrs. Cruz and Paul for supporting reforms of the NSA program, which Mr. Rubio has argued would make the U.S. safer in the aftermath of the Paris terror attacks.

Mr. Cruz has seemed lately to be trying to straddle the party’s divide. He has been bellicose in his rhetoric but reluctant to commit to expanded U.S. troops in the fight against Islamic State. “Our enemies are at war with us.…Our nation needs a wartime president to defend it,” Mr. Cruz said Thursday. But he also criticized U.S. efforts to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, arguing that past efforts to depose strongmen in Iraq and Libya were misguided and contributed to instability in the region.

“Toppling a government and allowing radical Islamic terrorism to take over a nation is not benefiting our national security interests,” he said.

That argument puts Mr. Cruz in league with Mr. Paul, who has asserted that the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya fueled the rise of ISIS. In the last GOP presidential debate, Mr. Paul criticized Mr. Rubio for supporting American military assistance to the uprising in Libya that deposed Gadhafi. “Marco supported Hillary’s war in Libya which destabilized the region,” Mr. Paul said.

The heightened concern about terrorism has also put a sharpened focus on candidates’ experience and ability to be commander-in-chief.

“Who has the right stuff?” asked Mr. Bush in his speech to the GOP group Thursday. “Who has the experience?”

Meanwhile, the candidacy of retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has suffered as a result of the shifting dialogue. He has seen his standing in polls drop amid questions about his command of foreign policy. He didn’t seem to do much to quell those doubts Thursday when he addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition.

He read his 30-minute speech from notes, looking down at his lectern and not at the audience. He repeatedly botched the pronunciation of Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas, making it sound instead like the chickpea dish hummus.

Businessman Donald Trump may have lost some support Thursday when he refused to recognize Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel—a litmus test issue for many U.S. Jewish voters.

And while he tried to show common cause with the attendees, he touched on a Jewish stereotype to do so. “This room negotiates deals, probably more than any group I’ve spoken to,” Mr. Trump said, winning applause and some laughter.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #783 on: December 05, 2015, 08:02:17 AM »
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - NSA Metadata
« Reply #784 on: December 06, 2015, 08:14:57 AM »
 "you need the haystack to find the needle."

My understanding of where the candidates stand on the so-called NSA metadata issue:

Erring on the side of 'security', as front runner Trump put it:
Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Jeb Bush, Chris Christy, Lindsey Graham

Erring on the side of 'privacy':
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders.

Rand Paul wants a "smaller haystack". 

The data only adds security if you use it and also aggressively use all the other tools available to track potential terror attacks.

I argue that: 
1)  We received essentially none of our lost privacy back through the ending of this program.
2)  Chasing down records via lawyers and courts means it is not immediately available to those we wish were tracking terror leads.
3)  Storing the same information at the phone companies still leaves a similar risk of a hack or misuse.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #785 on: December 06, 2015, 08:42:03 AM »
Useful post Doug!

Let's discuss the politics of it here and the merits of it on Intel Issues.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #786 on: December 06, 2015, 09:08:22 AM »
Rather than a massive NSA dragnet, you could actually do aggressive police work and target bad guys and their networks. Like the ton of uncollected evidence left at the berdoo jihadi lair.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #787 on: December 06, 2015, 10:16:07 AM »
Rather than a massive NSA dragnet, you could actually do aggressive police work and target bad guys and their networks. Like the ton of uncollected evidence left at the berdoo jihadi lair.

Not mutually exclusive choices, IMHO.  Give them the tools and do the hard work.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #788 on: December 06, 2015, 11:21:07 AM »
Merits on the Intel thread please.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #789 on: December 07, 2015, 12:02:48 PM »
Newest Monmouth Poll from Iowa. This month, Cruz leading at 24%.  Last month, it was Carson in the lead with 32%. August, it was Trump and Carson tied at 23%.

It is all about the assumptions that one makes on the electorate. In this case, Monmouth took people who had participated in 2012 and 2014 elections only. So it now comes to get out the vote of which Trump has a very strong organization. For Cruz, I have heard little on that.

Next month in Iowa, it will be

Cruz at 70%
Rubio at 55%
Carson at 15%
Jeb at 25%
Trump at -65%



PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #790 on: December 07, 2015, 02:13:39 PM »
Oops..............CNN ORC poll of Iowa...


Trump 33%

Cruz  20%

Carson  16%

Rubio   11%


http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/poll-results-ted-cruz-donald-trump-iowa/index.html
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #791 on: December 07, 2015, 05:45:39 PM »
Going in the right direction:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/07/hillary-clinton-poll-free-fall/

I worry about the Senate races.  Mostly Republicans at risk this time around.

Can anyone imagine Repubs win the Presidency and then lose the Senate?

Also definitely get rid of the filibuster.   I recall when the Repubs had the Senate and Congress and WH for two years nothing could get done due to the Dems controlling the floor.  Is that ridiculous?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #792 on: December 07, 2015, 07:01:23 PM »
Quite at variance with other polls cited her which show her losing to about 5 of the Reps, including by 12 to Rubio.

For the record, though I could gladly vote for Rubio, at the moment Cruz is in first place for me:

I like his tax proposal best.  I like that he is willing to stand for privacy from the Orwellian state even in the heat of the emotions of this moment in time.  I like that he now opposes the TPP (only Trump also does).  I wish he supported increasing spending for military like Rubio does, and wish he was tougher on China in the South China Sea (contrast Rubio).  I like Rubio, but sometimes wonder if he fully gets how the world has changed from the bi-polar military era of Reagan or the uni-polar era the Clinton-Bush era.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 07:05:48 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19758
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #793 on: December 07, 2015, 07:21:03 PM »
Cruz gets better and better on the podium.

That to me is a sign of a real genius.  We still haven't seen his peak.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #794 on: December 09, 2015, 09:23:19 AM »
Lead tightening, Cruz and Rubio have taken over statistical tie for 2nd. 
Carson on a down trend.
Bush stuck, 4% even with heavy advertising.
Christy who has been the talk lately - at 2%
Kasich, Lindsey Graham, others all 1% or less.
If Carson doesn't correct his slide this is a 3-way race.
3-way races are, shall we say, awkward.
The lower tier needs to clear themselves out unless we want our leaders to win with a plurality instead of a majority

USA Today/Suffolk   12/2 - 12/6
   
Trump    27   
Cruz      17
Rubio    16   
Carson   10   
Bush       4   
Christy     2

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html

Clinton   56
Sanders  29

Clinton will win with weak support.  44% of Dems won't say Clinton!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_democratic_presidential_nomination-3824.html

And, you guessed it, Rubio is the only one to lead Clinton in the general election matchup with a 7 point advantage over Trump, 5 better than Cruz.
That is starting to look like a pattern.  Let me know when that starts to be important to you people...   )

Clinton 48, Trump 44    Clinton +4
Clinton 47, Cruz 45       Clinton +2
Rubio 48,   Clinton 45   Rubio +3
Carson 45,  Clinton 46   Clinton +1

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

Warning, polls have statistical error and often over and under sample subgroups.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #795 on: December 09, 2015, 09:41:21 AM »
Also, Real Clear ignores a large number of polls, especially those that use on-line sampling. Curiously, all of those have Trump ahead by 10 points or more, and many by double.

This election is going to determine whether on-line or phone calls will be the new practice.

Real questions?

Can Cruz win in a general election?  No, Tea Party associate will knock him out and he will not get cross over votes. He will not even be the Presidential candidate.

Can Rubio win in a general election?  Maybe the polls say so, but he has not been subjected to the strong attacks that will be mounted by the Dems. Also, Amnesty will pose a big problem.  He is Jeb lite.

Can Trump win the general election?  Only if the GOP gets behind him, and they will not. The donors will go to Hillary since it benefits them and they only care about their bank accounts. 

Again, Trump will not be the candidate because everything possible will be done to stop him at the Convention. And when that happens and Rubio gets the nod, say goodbye to the GOP, whether Trump goes 3rd Party or not. 

Why support a party that believes its true base, the Middle Class, means nothing and are too ignorant to know what is good for them?
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #796 on: December 09, 2015, 10:10:39 AM »
Pat:  "everything possible will be done to stop him at the Convention."

You may be right but there are a lot of primary votes and delegates to be selected before the convention.

This has been a divided race, but so far no reason to think it will be a close race.

If it gets to the convention and if GOP has superdelegate votes like the Dems do, we can expect those votes to go to:
a) The superdelegate's preference, presumably Rubio over Trump if that is the choice, or
b) to the leader in vote count so far, or
c) to the candidate who is more likely to win the general election.
In other words, we don't know which way they will go, but if it swings against Trump, well that is his fault or responsibility to court those votes.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #797 on: December 09, 2015, 10:32:57 AM »
DMG,

1. There are 3 Super Delegates in each state.  All total, there are 159.  All are RNC Party officials and these will go to the RNC/GOP pick which is Rubio. So that means 10% of the total needed.

2. In the first 10 states or so, proportional representation occurs. What this means is that unless the winner gets 50% plus 1 of the total vote, the votes are split among the top two or three in most cases. So figure Rubio will get 1/3rd of all cast.

3. Most of the primaries after Mar 15 are winner take all. So if trends hold, Trump would get most. Or if Trump falters, Rubio.

With Rubio, Cruz and Trump all running in each primary, unless something catastrophic happens, no one will get more than 50% of the actual vote. Then comes Rule 40.

Under Rule 40, to have a name placed in nomination, the person must have won 8 primaries by at least 50% plus won. So it is likely no one will have that number of states to have their name placed into nomination. (Even if Trump had the number of delegates pledged to win, he could not have his name placed into nomination.) In that case, the RNC has the authority to change the rules. Here is where the fun begins.

The RNC could pull any sort of things, including that pledged delegates could move to the candidate of their choice. Promises and deals could be made that would effectively ruin any opportunity for either Trump or Cruz to come out in front. And then, Rubio is the nominee.

Does anyone think that this is far-fetched? Look at what the RNC has already tried in attempts to stop Trump. They will not stop at anything to prevent Trump from being the nominee. And they will do the same to Cruz.

Once they do that, the GOP is finished as a major party. The Middle Class base will desert them, as well they should.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #798 on: December 09, 2015, 10:45:50 AM »
Wow, here is a surprise................Dole does not like Trump or Cruz.

1. Who knew that Dole was still alive?

2. Who was that who beat Dole in 1996, and this loss occurring after Gingrich had the stunning 1994 win in the off year elections?  Oh, yeah, Clinton....

3. Who opposed Ronald Reagan every time he ran?  Oh, Dole.....

4. Who should pay attention to this loser, GOPe politician?  No One.


http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/election/article48657165.html
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72258
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #799 on: December 09, 2015, 11:11:19 AM »
On this we agree.  Dole was, and is, an irrelevancy.