Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471347 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #800 on: December 09, 2015, 12:37:33 PM »
If Trump has the support claimed, especially from outside the traditional Republican voter base, outside of the 2012 Romney vote base, outside of the people who voted in the primaries last time, then he can and should bring in new voters and win 8 (or all) primaries with 50% or more and end this question.  It doesn't take that many voters to do that in the big picture of it all.

If it comes down to a tiebreaker and Trump has a recent history of running against the party, working and donating against the party and matching up worse in the general election, and he wasn't able to seal it up with new voters before the election, he would expect extra support ? 

Giving credit where credit is due (in the Republican Party), Trump bumped up viewership in 3 debates, somebody else built the rest, such as winning 32 governorships, taking out the Pelosi-Reid-Trump congress and winning 70% of the legislatures, making it possible that there is a major party with debates and endorsements for Trump to enter.

If Trump wins the nomination, at the ballot box as he should, he has said he doesn't want anyone else's money, so from the party purse perspective, that is settled.

The party is being blamed for a whole lot of shenanigans here that haven't even happened.  This is a pretty open process.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #801 on: December 09, 2015, 12:52:55 PM »
DMG

We shall see.

But I have no faith in the Party of McCain, Romney, McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, King, Rubio, Bush 1, 2 & 3, and all of the others. Betrayed by them too many times. Lied to by them too many times.

After 2012 and the Romney debacle, I decided not to bother in 2016. I would not repeat the same mistake a third, fourth or fifth, or even 20th time. The only reason that I have any enthusiasm for 2016 is Trump. If he is not involved, I go back to my original position and sit things out. And........I will not be alone.

The Middle Class is through with politics as usual. It is change or "let it fail".

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #802 on: December 09, 2015, 03:24:31 PM »
 :-D :-D :-D

Zogby....polling after Trump's comments on Muslims


• Donald Trump: 38%
• Ben Carson: 13%
• Marco Rubio: 12%
• Ted Cruz: 8%
• Jeb Bush: 7%
• Chris Christie: 4%
• Carly Fiorina: 3%
• Others/Not Sure: 16%

Small sample with 6% MOE. But largest lead for Trump yet with Zogby polling.

Fox has a North Carolina poll done on the day before and day after. It finds on the day after, another similar jump in support for Trump.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #803 on: December 10, 2015, 07:28:19 AM »
New CBS Poll

Trump at 35%, up from 22% in Oct

Cruz at 16%.

Rubio is SURGING and up to 9%.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Laying Odds on the GOP race, Sean Trende
« Reply #804 on: December 10, 2015, 09:00:12 AM »
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/10/laying_odds_on_the_gop_presidential_race_128994.html

Good article, kind of agrees with Pat.  First place is no winner before the convention.  Second is Trump with only 20% odds.  80% says he doesn't get it and 33% chance it either Rubio or Cruz, evenly split.  The only one really left to make a rise is Christy, who is in the 'Trump lane' should he falter.

Trende also points out the floor and ceiling problem that Trump seems to face.

In other words, no one knows where this is going.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #805 on: December 10, 2015, 01:54:50 PM »
What have I been saying about the GOPe manipulating the Convention?   I don't remember............

This might help me remember.........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-preparing-for-contested-convention/2015/12/10/d72574bc-9f73-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html

Quote
Considering that scenario as Priebus and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) listened, several longtime power brokers argued that if the controversial billionaire storms through the primaries, the party’s establishment must lay the groundwork for a floor fight, in which the GOP’s mainstream wing could coalesce around an alternative, the people said.

Quote
“The RNC is neutral in this process and the rules are set until the convention begins next July. Our goal is to ensure a successful nomination and that requires us thinking through every scenario, including a contested convention.”

Quote
Attendees included Ward Baker, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee; Rob Simms, his counterpart at the National Republican Congressional Committee; Ron Kaufman, an RNC committeeman and Mitt Romney confidant; and pollster Linda DiVall. Whit Ayres, an adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), and Vin Weber, an ally of former Florida governor Jeb Bush, also were there, among others.

Quote
RNC members will huddle in January in South Carolina to discuss the convention. Although no rule changes can be implemented until the convention, the people familiar with the meeting said top Republicans would like to begin that winter meeting with more clarity about how the RNC would handle a contested convention.

Okay, I remember now. These sons of bitches will ignore the "will of the people" if Trump is leading in votes and delegates. They will manipulate the rules to put in Rubio or Jeb. To hell with the people, it is all about doing what their patrons want.

They do this, and it will totally destroy the GOP. It will splinter into 2 different parties, and the lovely Dems will be all for it.  (BTW, had a talk with one of the attorneys I deal with regularly. She is a big Clinton supporter. Talk about the glee in her voice when she told me that the GOP was preparing to "divorce" (her words) Trump.)

Guess I have not been imaging things.....
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #806 on: December 10, 2015, 02:33:29 PM »
If Trump can't handle the GOP and the RNC, they are just too evil and conspiratorial, how is he going to handle N.K., Iran, ISIS, China, Putin?  He seems to have no tools in the arsenal except whine and threaten to leave.  Another approach would have, could have been to join the party, back candidates and causes over a long period of time and give money to the party and the important races.  How much has he given to Ron Johnson in Wisconsin I wonder.  Doesn't care if arch liberal Russ Feingold comes back in over a tea party businessman and swings the Senate to the Dems, or like foreign policy, maybe he just isn't interested in it?

Instead of helping Republicans, Trump was with Hillary and Pelosi and Reid, neutralizing thousands of GOP'ers contributions over those years and he expects them to forget that and jump in his parade?  Actually he doesn't expect them to join him; that is why he starting up these preemptive shots at them.

Trump built the ceiling on his support that keeps the rest of the people out, and its a solid one.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #807 on: December 10, 2015, 03:34:43 PM »
Trump did what he had to do for his business. New York, you pay off everyone to get things done. And payoff of politicians in any part of the country is standard fair. So is unions, etc.

Uuh....per different people, including Dan Quayle, Trump has been interested in running for decades, at least to 1992. But the time was not right. Okay, he gave money to Dems, but he also did to Reps. He did what was needed to get his own needs met. So is that wrong? If so, what about every SuperPac, corporation, and rich person in the country? They all do the same thing.

This is not about Trump having supported or not supported Reps in previous elections. Look at what these same fools tried with Reagan. This is about saving the Country from the professional politicians. Politicians on both sides bought and paid for by Crony Capitalists, Wall Street Financial firms. Health providers and who knows what else?

You say to work withing the Party, well good luck with that. At all levels, the Party is controlled by those who will fight to avoid change and the disruption on their own little empires. Just take the GOP fostering upon us McConnell, Ryan, Romney, Boehner, McCain, Dole and the many others. 

We don't have time to work through the parties, The country is only a few years from collapse at the most. We must take action now. And that does not include the other fools running................they are simply more of the same......
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #808 on: December 10, 2015, 03:37:08 PM »
"She is a big Clinton supporter"

Nothing greater than the idea of lawyers supporting an obvious serial law breaking attorney for the top job in the country to give us confidence in our "justice system".

 

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #809 on: December 10, 2015, 03:49:09 PM »
What is even better is that she is a very religious Catholic. When I asked her about Hillary, Juanita Brokerick, Paula Jones and others, she had nothing to say except that "gotta take this call. Going to trial this week with this client."

PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #810 on: December 10, 2015, 03:52:24 PM »
People say "Stalinist Russia" like it's a bad thing.

It wasn't all bad.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #811 on: December 10, 2015, 04:10:20 PM »
DMG,

I must ask this......

From a Party perspective, I can understand your view, though I don't believe in it. But how about this?

A majority of the GOP voters in most states vote for Trump and he wins those states, though it is not a 50% plus one majority.

As a whole, the majority of GOP votes go for him when all states are counted.

Trump has a majority of the delegates.

So, what does the GOP powers say to those who voted for Trump when they manipulate the Convention to get their way and to prevent Trump from being nominated?

What reason do they provide?

What reason do they give for Trump supporters to vote for the GOP candidate?

Do you think that this will cause the Trump supporters to give in and support the GOP pick?

Just asking....
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #812 on: December 10, 2015, 04:57:03 PM »
"You say to work withing the Party,..."

No, I'm not saying he should, I'm pointing out that he didn't.  He still attacks his own side as if they are the enemy, then acts surprised that somebody isn't with him.  

He wrote the rules of this.  It wasn't something the party did to him.  And it's all wimpering about a wrong that did not happen yet.
-------------------------------------

The Sean Trende article I posted earlier addresses the 3 scenarios going to the convention:

"My most likely scenario (25%) is still that no one wins a sufficient number of delegates to claim the nomination. As Nate Silver lays it out, this comes in three different “flavors”: (1) No one wins, but someone is close enough that the writing is on the wall; (2) no one wins, but things get sorted out at the convention; (3) no one wins, and it is fought out on the convention floor. I agree with Silver that these are presented in decreasing order of likelihood, and actually put the overall percentages lower than he did (and lower than I did last winter)."

Under scenario 1, No one wins, but someone is close enough that the writing is on the wall:  That is the only scenario where the superdelegates should feel obligated to vote the way others want them to vote.  It isn't unique to a Trump candidacy that tipping a close party endorsement, one way or the other, risks being seen as illegitimate.  

Note the distinction between winning a plurality and a majority.  What we see right now is that Trump built a strong plurality.  He leads in all polls where the others can not get over his ceiling of about 25-35%.  

The endorsement conventions I've been to (mostly state and local) typically require a 60% threshold to endorse.  After they announce the result of each ballot you see who is gaining ground and who is losing.  People want it to end and go home.  There is a lot of pressure on those losing ground after 2 ballots to drop out.  In a convention floor fight, I see Cruz as a bigger threat to Rubio than Trump.  The activists tend to be more conservative in my experience, mostly not the moderate chamber of commerce type.

The distaste Trump built with the others outside his 25-35% support is his doing.  It isn't pretty watching an 11-fold billionaire dish it out ruthlessly ("just look at her face!") and then play the victim card.  It's his job to persuade those delegates.  That he refuses to do that is one reason people never took his candidacy seriously, even into the second half year of him being the frontrunner.

You're right, he knows how to win over a politician, a union or a mob on a project in Manhattan.  If his political strength is that he's not a politician and never run for office before, it could also be his undoing.  The other risk he runs is that when he does be more conventional, he loses his edge and becomes just one of the pack.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 05:13:17 PM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #813 on: December 10, 2015, 05:30:18 PM »
Two things:

1. Trump can't get over 35% now.  Well what about the other candidates? If they can't beat Trump here, how can they beat Hillary?

2. Again, what will the GOP say to the Trump supporters to get them to support their pick? The party cannot win the presidency without the Trump supporters.

IMO, I just see the professional political class once again imposing their own views on the party.  And they will leave the party with more ineffective leadership.

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #814 on: December 10, 2015, 07:12:45 PM »
Two things:
1. Trump can't get over 35% now.  Well what about the other candidates? If they can't beat Trump here, how can they beat Hillary?
2. Again, what will the GOP say to the Trump supporters to get them to support their pick? The party cannot win the presidency without the Trump supporters.

IMO, I just see the professional political class once again imposing their own views on the party.  And they will leave the party with more ineffective leadership.

1.  Yes, we wouldn't be discussing this if one of the others was polling well over 50%.

2. That goes both ways.  They need to unify to win in spite of what you say about Trump's crossover appeal.

3.  Rubio doesn't win if he is mainly seen as a professional politician, you are right. He must be seen as an agent of change to win.  He will also be seen in contrast to Hillary.  The perception of hanging around Washington too long will fall on her, not the first term senator.  She will try to paint him as tea party extremist, not Washington establishment.  All the accusations now that he is too moderate and centrist will only help him in the general election.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 09:59:23 PM by DougMacG »

DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #815 on: December 11, 2015, 04:42:13 PM »
Two things:
1. Trump can't get over 35% now.  Well what about the other candidates? If they can't beat Trump here, how can they beat Hillary?
2. Again, what will the GOP say to the Trump supporters to get them to support their pick? The party cannot win the presidency without the Trump supporters.

IMO, I just see the professional political class once again imposing their own views on the party.  And they will leave the party with more ineffective leadership.

1.  Yes, we wouldn't be discussing this if one of the others was polling well over 50%.

2. That goes both ways.  They need to unify to win in spite of what you say about Trump's crossover appeal.

3.  Rubio doesn't win if he is mainly seen as a professional politician, you are right. He must be seen as an agent of change to win.  He will also be seen in contrast to Hillary.  The perception of hanging around Washington too long will fall on her, not the first term senator.  She will try to paint him as tea party extremist, not Washington establishment.  All the accusations now that he is too moderate and centrist will only help him in the general election.


Year after year, we do do this.... Libertarians and Tea Party members expected to give in and support Republican mainstrain candidates.....


I have a better idea.... "NO!. Not this time."

Let Clinton win it, let it all burn, because you (the other half of the GOP voters who won't be inclusive of teapartying conservatives or conservative libertarians, won't play ball.... so let's forfeit the match until we can all fight this out because things have putrified to that extent.

Bear in mind, to many, the only ones that GOP lifestyles are sacred to, are to the so called political elite and wealthy. There is a growing sector of the country that gets tired of being called "cracker," having their children taken away from them in divorces so they can pay even more to a greedy pig, even though they paid everything in years of marriage, gets tired of being told they have to give their own country away, and that they're guilty for being White....

No more. Let the whole thing f ing burn.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #816 on: December 11, 2015, 05:47:59 PM »
Thank you DDF for that response. You cite exactly why the Trumpkins/Vulgarians have simply said to hell with the GOP.

I might note that the GOP has indicated that the Trumpkins are welcome back in the Party, but only under GOP conditions. Otherwise we are not welcome.  Certainly sounds like the Big Tent Party they profess to want.

More and more people are seeing that with Trump, the GOP will suffer irrepairable damages either way. If Trump is the nominee, the GOPe losses control and the base becomes a force to be reckoned with. They stop Trump when Trump would otherwise be the nominee, and the Party is destroyed because the base will simply part ways.

Is the GOP willing to give up control? Not likely, so it is the end of the Party.

And Yes............Let It Burn!!!



PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #817 on: December 11, 2015, 05:54:56 PM »
"If Trump is the nominee, the GOPe losses control and the base becomes a force to be reckoned with."


Strangely....this is what voting was supposed to be used for....

All's well that ends well.


To hell with it.

How about that affirmative action American Dream?

I'll never forget the day that I called the Small Business Administration to get a loan from my own taxpayer dollars and was told flat out that because I was White and a male, that I wouldn't qualify....if only I was making that up.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2015, 05:58:33 PM by DDF »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #818 on: December 11, 2015, 06:32:36 PM »
I known what you mean. With lending, it is a new situation, but in the opposite. A lender can deny a loan to a minority for legitimate reasons like bad credit or ability to pay. But if the denials affect a large number of the minority class, then the lender can be sued for disparate impact, even though the decision was correct. And even worse, if they give the loan but the loan defaults, they can be sued because the loan defaulted, even though they were forced to fund the loan.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #819 on: December 12, 2015, 06:47:16 AM »
Pro-immigration economist Lawrence Kudlow now says, this is war, seal the borders.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/12/12/ive_changed_this_is_war_seal_the_borders_stop_the_visas_129021.html

Why didn't Trump say that?

Not all Muslims look like Muslims or how was Trump going to sort them out?  That wasn't his concern;  he wanted this moment of shock and awe in the campaign and the media (again and again) and he got it.

Nate silver says Rubio was  more cautious than Bush, Christy, Kasich, Graham etc and waited 3 hours to say he disagreed. 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-republicans-and-polls-enable-donald-trump/

As I tried to make the point earlier, these candidates are not trained monkeys or seals, required to sit up there and respond to whatever the leader is uttering.  

It's more complicated than that, they need war room type fast responses when called for, but they also need to choose their moments to refuse to be put on defense.  The successful candidate needs to dictate play, as coaches tell their athletes.  Trump is doing that but in a bizarre way.

When interrupted out on the trail to comment on the latest thing Trump said that they haven't even heard yet, they need to be able to say, hey, what I'm talking about here is more important than that.  And that had better be true.  Otherwise they need a little ear piece so their team can signal in whatever the latest Trump just said, like the guy who who interrupted the kindergarten reading to tell Bush the country was under attack.

The ones who handle the unexpected easiest are the ones who already know what they believe.  They can say no, we aren't going to single out all Muslims, but that doesn't answer the question:  WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO PROTECT US?!


A journalist studying Trump voters pointed out the difference in messaging.  Carly was explaining how she implemented encryption on something at HP, showing her security competence in a tone deaf sort of way in the context of the threat we face.  Meanwhile, Trump got in front of all the cameras said, THESE PEOPLE ARE ANIMALS!  He is communicating on a different level, base level, while demonstrating again and again that he doesn't care if people draw some politically incorrect meaning out of that.

I've been saying Trump won't win but that isn't right if it turns out he is the only one seen as serious about recognizing and addressing our fears and this threat.


The other story helping him that others seem to not connect on is the economy.  Less than 50% of the people are now in the middle class.  When I red that I thought it was just some bogus measure, but it is measured based on percentage away from the median.  As we have been saying here in response to Wesbury et al, the 5% unemployment economy with however many consecutive months of (pathetic) job growth is a misrepresentation of what people are actually experiencing.  The message, Make America Great Again is making a connection with working people and people who want to be working, saving and chasing the American Dream.  Bush, with Right to Rise, has almost the same message  but isn't connecting. Rubio is also selling the idea that greatness is ahead if we successfully change course, but Trump is connecting better right now on a more base level than all the others on the economic insecurity people are feeling.

Take away Trump's negatives and you have a winner.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2015, 07:10:58 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #820 on: December 12, 2015, 07:49:40 AM »
Why is Trump connecting with the Middle Class and the working man?

1. He has given "permission" to the people to do away with the PC crap that they so hate.

2. He talks with the Middle Class and speaks their language. When you listen to the others, especially Jeb, they are talking "at" them, in a manner that poorly communicates an idea.

As I remember from Communication Courses, and as I have found in writing evaluations for the Courts, keep everything to a 12th grade level. Don't make it complicated whereby a person has to think about what you wrote, or said. If you don't, you lose the essence of what you want to get across.

I was surprised to see you surprised about the Middle Class being less than 50% now.  This is one of the points that I have been trying to make in both the housing and the political threads, but obviously in a very poor manner. Income is down since 2002 and for many it is reaching levels for 1996. And in terms of real income, back into the 70's for many. Add to this the number of people who are now part time so that businesses can comply with Obamacare restrictions, and there is a real problem.

How to identify how bad things are? If the government would do studies and release them of how many people:

1. Have less than 3 months of living expenses in bank and retirement accounts.

2. Have Middle Class incomes and Credit Cards Limits equaling more than 35% of their Gross Income Yearly.

3. Have Credit Card Balances that are greater than 50% of the maximum limit.

4. Make the Minimum Payments due on those cards.

5. Have no further access to cash.

The Middle Class is living paycheck to paycheck. They are one to two months away from living on the streets and they are one hospital stay from the same. And the Lower Class is even worse.

But those in power do not understand this, or even care about it. Instead, they offer platitudes about just work harder and you will be where we are. It is just not that simple.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #821 on: December 12, 2015, 07:52:29 AM »
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #822 on: December 12, 2015, 12:29:30 PM »
Pat,  I am a landlord so I am the first to know when income is down.  This Nov and Dec have been  perhaps my worst 2 months ever for collections.

Trump isn't communicating at the 12th grade level.  He is connecting on an emotional and primal instinct level.  At the 12th grade level people would  see his positions are all over the map.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #824 on: December 12, 2015, 03:02:56 PM »
Maybe so Doug. But the numbers keep going up for Trump support. What does that really say for us and who we are?
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #825 on: December 13, 2015, 07:42:59 AM »
"the numbers keep going up for Trump"

12 Hillary v. Trump polls since Oct. 1.  Hillary leads in 9, Trump leads in 2, even in 1.

Trump says 10 of these are flawed, 2 are accurate.

NBC/WSJ lastst poll: 59% have negative view of Trump.  49% say very negative.
These aren't the numbers Pat is referring to.  )

Asked about the Muslim entry ban, Rubio says 1) it won't happen, and 2) we need the cooperation of the American Muslim community to uncover radicalization and terror plots in this country.  True?

Obama struck a climate agreement with no enforcement and requires no congressional approval.  He brags that we lead the world in reducing our emissions.  No mention by anyone of the number one step we took to accomplish this, outside of Washington, which is the switch to natural gas made possible by fracking.  

Republican Debate this week, Tues Dec 15.  
Democrat Debate 8 pm Sat night Dec 19.  Was the 2am time slot already soid out?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2015, 07:45:15 AM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #826 on: December 13, 2015, 08:46:22 AM »
Please provide the source for the polls you cite so I can take a look at them, observe trend lines, etc.

Also, you cite NBC/WSJ on the negatives. Seems to me that many other polls are showing much less on negatives and many have him in positive territory. 

The bottom line is that if  Trump wins the primaries and has the most delegates, the GOP has a major problem. They give in to Trump and cede their control of the party to the common person. Or they deny Trump and the supporters of Trump leave the party for good.

Either way, the GOP as it stands today is over.  And that would be well deserved based upon the last two decades.

Yes, I have GDS. GOP Derangement Syndrome. And I have plenty of company.....

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #827 on: December 13, 2015, 08:59:43 AM »
BTW, the NBC poll cites Cruz at 22% when the last 6 National Polls had him on average at 12%. 

Trump was at 27% with NBC, but the last 6 had Trump at 38%.

What gives?  (Besides the fact that NBC has consistently been lower than the other polls.)
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #828 on: December 13, 2015, 09:22:51 AM »
"12 Hillary v. Trump polls since Oct. 1.  Hillary leads in 9, Trump leads in 2, even in 1."

"Please provide the source for the polls you cite so I can take a look at them, observe trend lines, etc."

It was a claim made this morning by one of the neutral, unbiased pundits like Karl Rove...  )   The source was the Real Clear poll tracking and averages.  Turns out Clinton wins 9 of the last 10.  I know, the 9 are flawed and the other one is accurate.   :wink:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

RCP Average   11/15 - 12/6   --   --   47.0   43.7   Clinton +3.3
USA Today/Suffolk   12/2 - 12/6   1000 LV   3.0   48   44   Clinton +4
CNN/ORC   11/27 - 12/1   930 RV   3.0   49   46   Clinton +3
Quinnipiac   11/23 - 11/30   1473 RV   2.6   47   41   Clinton +6
MSNBC/Telemundo/Marist   11/15 - 12/2   2360 RV   2.0   52   41   Clinton +11
FOX News   11/16 - 11/19   1016 RV   4.0   41   46   Trump +5
PPP (D)   11/16 - 11/17   1360 RV   2.7   45   44   Clinton +1
McClatchy/Marist   10/29 - 11/4   541 RV   4.2   56   41   Clinton +15
Quinnipiac   10/29 - 11/2   1144 RV   2.9   46   43   Clinton +3
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl   10/25 - 10/29   847 RV   3.4   50   42   Clinton +8
CNN/ORC   10/14 - 10/17   956 RV   3.0   50   45   Clinton +5
------------------------

"What gives?"

We're going over the same ground but Trump is connecting strongly with a good number of people while strongly turning away too many others.

He doesn't know how to move higher (doesn't even want to at this point) and the others don't know how to take him out, much less how to do it without alienating his large number of supporters.
------------------------

On this day in the 2012 race, Newt was winning, FWIW.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #829 on: December 13, 2015, 10:07:47 AM »
I prefer the Huffington Post which is tracking 33 different pollsters and not a selective few.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #830 on: December 13, 2015, 02:30:28 PM »
I prefer the Huffington Post which is tracking 33 different pollsters and not a selective few.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

I didn't see any general election polling data at that link.  

Try this one:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
They have a wider margin against Trump than RCP.

HuffPost Model Estimate

  Hillary Clinton 47.5%
  Donald Trump 43.5%


Cruz fares even worse than Trump.  Rubio has the best chance of winning by their numbers.

At some point, winning is going to matter.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #831 on: December 13, 2015, 03:40:48 PM »
Thanks. I forgot to send you that link.

You are right about at some point, winning is the key. But first, it is getting the nomination. And I still believe that the GOP will manipulate things to go with Rubio.

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #832 on: December 13, 2015, 05:46:56 PM »
"At some point, winning is going to matter."

Which is why it is reasonable to prefer Rubio and to not regard it as a dastardly plot to want him to win.

Again, at the moment, my first choice is Cruz.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #833 on: December 13, 2015, 05:50:57 PM »
Pat wrote:

"I see now that PAC reform is needed. The Citizen's United ruling though correct, left too many ways to exploit campaign laws."

Disagree completely.

SCOTUS has held  (Buckley v. Valeo?) that individuals cannot be blocked from spending their own money on their own speech.  Are you against this too?  Or only against others raising money to compete?

THANKS in great part to Citizens United, we now have the most competitive race any of us have ever seen.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19760
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #834 on: December 14, 2015, 06:07:50 AM »
Hypothetical if this poll is true I would have to vote for Cruz.  He is not my first choice but he is acceptable.  Hillary is not.  I would MUCH rather have him and be more confident in keeping the crook out:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-clinton-would-sail-to-win-over-trump/ar-BBnwdK8?li=BBnb7Kz

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #835 on: December 14, 2015, 07:15:51 AM »
I said PAC Reform.

Just look at the people behind each of the PACs. They are billionaires or half a billionaires who are throwing money around like candy. They have interests or businesses that are in real estate, oil and energy, financial and investment firms. Each benefits from government programs and all fall into the realm of chrony capitalists. Does anyone really believe that they are NOT buying the candidates with their PACs?

Worse, though the law does not allow it, they are actively working with the candidates campaigns. Have a rally in Texas? The PAC supporting the candidate puts it all together, pays most of the expenses, provides all types of other services.

Then you have the PACs that are supporting one candidate donating to another candidates cause so as to stop a third upsurgent candidate. The worst part is that with the PACs, additional contributors do not have to be identified. They remain hidden, as well as the amounts contributed.

Citizen's ruling was taken totally to the extreme with what could be done. Now there are no more rules. And the candidates are being totally bought off. If nothing is reformed, wait to see what happens in 2020.



PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #836 on: December 14, 2015, 07:26:20 AM »
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #837 on: December 14, 2015, 08:46:04 AM »
Pat wrote:
"I see now that PAC reform is needed. The Citizen's United ruling though correct, left too many ways to exploit campaign laws."

Disagree completely.

SCOTUS has held  (Buckley v. Valeo?) that individuals cannot be blocked from spending their own money on their own speech.  Are you against this too?  Or only against others raising money to compete?

THANKS in great part to Citizens United, we now have the most competitive race any of us have ever seen.


Yes,  Amen to that.  You have the right to pay for your own free speech and the right to support the candidate of your choice to carry your voice forward if you have free speech at all.  Did they need a separate amendment for political speech when it is already written so clearly in the first paragraph of the bill of rights?  We need to exercise that right vigorously to match the influence of our biased mainstream media, liberal colleges, schools and teachers unions exert in the process. 

Founders didn't say free speech with limits.

Two ways to fix the disproportionate influence of 'billionaires in the system without tromping on the constitution:
1)  If everyone who can afford to would put as much money into supporting freedom or tyranny as you pay for laundry soap, that message would get heard loud and clear over the so-called special interests.
2)  Vote for zero tolerance for the system of preferences in taxes, spending and regulations and the so-called big money will have nothing of interest to purchase.

BTW, Bush and Trump just proved that money isn't what buys votes.


CCP,  That poll like all the others says vote for Rubio if you want to win.

Pat,  Regarding the evil billionaires, what it is that Koch, Bramen Mercer, Adelson, Friess want for America that I don't want?  They don't really need government help at this point.  I notice that Mercer works in the low taxed hedge fund industry and Cruz wants low taxes for all.  Koch brothers have done mroe to support liberty than anyone I know.  Seems to me we need more billionaires and more of them to support freedom over tyranny.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #838 on: December 14, 2015, 10:12:17 AM »
Maybe it is because I have seen the influence that the banks and financial firms had and still have over government, using money to buy influence and then to get their own pet programs put into play. Then we see the results like the financial collapse.

Take Dodd Frank. The banks had a large amount of influence in it, and now we have TBTF fail banks and the local banks are disappearing. New banks? There has only been one created since Dodd Frank because it is now far too expensive to create a new bank. Meanwhile the Big 5 get even bigger.

What about Glass Steagal? That push by the banks and financial firms eliminated the lines between commercial and wholesale banks. This then led to the predatory lending practices, securitization and the ultimate Boom and Bust.

Obamacare? The Health Care industries even participated in writing the damned regulations. Look what has happened.

Just because the interests of the billionaires match yours does not always mean that they are good for the country. 

Star Chamber controlling the country and politicians through money?
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #839 on: December 14, 2015, 10:15:07 AM »
I mean these billionaires and these candidates...

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #840 on: December 14, 2015, 10:42:56 AM »
And what makes them different than any others?
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #841 on: December 14, 2015, 10:48:11 AM »
New  Monmouth Poll (which I have previously questioned their methodology)

Trump 41% up from 28%  in Oct 15 poll

Cruz 14% up from 10%

Carson 9% down from 18%

I need to check the methodology and compare to previous polls they have done. If there has been no change, then this is either an outlier with some unlucky statistical variation in calls, or else there is a strong movement to Trump.  Other polls this week will be very interesting.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #842 on: December 14, 2015, 10:55:35 AM »
Skip it then.  I thought you were making a specific charge.

What makes it different it that our side does not want a system of spoils that is for sale to the high bidder.  We want a level playing field with all welcome to come out and work, save, invest, produce, etc.  This process is for figuring who will do that.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #843 on: December 14, 2015, 05:59:34 PM »
Interesting article and perspective by an RNC delegate and North Dakota committeeman.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/14/gop-field-must-use-2016-to-force-conservative-primary-reform/

He writes that the primaries should only be "beauty contests" and the RNC must save the Party from lo-info voters.   He admits that the rule changes in 2012 were to protect the Romney candidacy. And he does not to give up the power of the delegates to pick the candidate by primary results.

As he writes:

Quote
In short, the Progressive Republicans have attempted to transfer the act of official voting for the purpose of determining the party’s nominee from the convention delegates to the voters in primaries and caucuses.

This destruction of the rights of the Republican individuals who have succeeded in earning the high honor of becoming a delegate to the National Convention of their chosen party is unconscionable.

Each delegate to the Republican National Convention has a rules protected right and a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote their conscience on all matters that come before the convention.

Like the other First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and religion, the freedom to choose those with whom you associate politically carries with it the right to participate in the private affairs of that association without interference from the government or others who are not associated with you, such as non-Republican primary voters.

This only proves the arrogance of the GOPe and confirms to me that even if Trump wins all the primaries, he will not be the nominee.  lf this is the typical attitude of the RNC/GOP towards the base and those who vote in the primary, then the GOP and RNC can go to hell.

Let Hillary win.

Let it burn.

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #846 on: December 15, 2015, 07:06:55 AM »
More from the Convention article I posted above.

Hoaglund writes: 

Quote
In the 2000 National Convention, the order of the Rules of the Republican Party was inexplicably reversed.  Prior to 2000, the rules were in proper chronological order with the PROCEEDINGS OF NATIONAL CONVENTION first, then followed by THE RULES FOR THE ELECTION AND GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE until the next convention.

This subtle change gives the false impression that the rules printed AHEAD of the temporary rules for the next convention actually apply to the next convention!

They simply do not. The preamble is clear and unambiguous, even given the reversal of the rules order, where it states “…the following…are adopted as the Rules of the Republican Party, composed of the rules for the election and government of the Republican National Committee until the next national convention…” Keep in mind, these are the 2012 party rules.

In other words, the current Republican National Committee ceases to exist when the 2016 Republican National Convention convenes and, if re-authorized, a new Republican National Committee will re-organize following the convention to govern the party until the 2020 convention.

In short, the Progressive Republicans have attempted to transfer the act of official voting for the purpose of determining the party’s nominee from the convention delegates to the voters in primaries and caucuses.

This destruction of the rights of the Republican individuals who have succeeded in earning the high honor of becoming a delegate to the National Convention of their chosen party is unconscionable.

What the above section is saying (along with other portions of the article) all the current rules for the Convention ease to exist when the Convention opens and the delegates vote on new rules. So the delegates can change the rules to whatever they want and install whomever as their Dictator Nominee.

It also reveals the absolute DISDAIN that the delegates have for the party members and voters as a whole. They know better than everyone else and don't care what the primary voters want. If this is the type of party that the GOPe wants, then they can keep it.

If anyone other than the vote winner and delegate winner from the primary process is chosen, I will never vote for a major Pub candidate again. And as more Trumpkins see this, they will feel the same way.

The GOP deserves to go the way of the Whigs.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #847 on: December 15, 2015, 07:22:00 AM »
Here is another poll that is obviously flawed,,,,,,,it cannot be correct. It shows Trump at 38% and Cruz at 15% and is some rinky dinky outfit called ABC/WAPO.

Just can't be correct. 

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19445
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #848 on: December 15, 2015, 09:01:29 AM »
BIG debate tonight.  Seems like no one is promoting it though I don't get cable so I guess I wouldn't know.

I hope they are able to delve into the issues that separate them without the distraction of questioner agenda and bias.  Also I hope they spend at least half their time emphasizing differences with Obama, Clinton and the status quo, not just picking at small differences with each other.

Hugh Hewitt is committed to asking tough foreign policy questions.  The liberals in charge will probably give him about 10 seconds to do that.

Watch for Trump to continue the attack on Cruz and look for a well-planned response from Cruz rising above that and talking to Trump's supporters instead of to Trump.  Look for Cruz and Rubio to go at it briefly.  I don't expect anything to get settled there, but maybe the differences are clarified.  Will Trump suddenly change tone and impersonate a reasonable, professional politician?  If so, will it hurt him?  Who will Christy take on to make himself relevant?  I predict he will follow one of the infighting episodes with a prosecutorial assault on Hillary's record on policy and her neglect of her national security responsibilities as his breakout moment.  I would like to see Rubio beat him to that punch.

What they say in the debates tends to be what we already heard them saying on the trail.  Only one or two things should surprise.

I think it is too late for Bush, Kasich, Paul, Huckabee or even Carson to make a ripple in the water, but we will see.

Between this debate and the holidays, those who know they can't win should throw in the towel.  Everyone is already calling this a 3 way race.  Let's reduce it to 4 or fewer soon.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #849 on: December 15, 2015, 09:05:37 AM »
None are going to throw in the towel until after the first four primaries. The "lure" of the campaign and the ego trip, plus the money, will not allow the losers to do so.

And Jeb? He is still the choice of the Party Rulers.  He can't give in.
PPulatie