Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471492 times)

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #900 on: December 18, 2015, 05:17:42 PM »
Interesting comparing the previous result to now.

This month Trump down 11 and in Nov up 5.

With Cruz it is a tie and in Nov, Cuz +4

Rubio, +2 now down from +8


Also, Trump wins on being the most effective on ISIS, Commander in Chief, and Economy

Key Point,

The Poll has

43% Dem
39% Rep
16% Ind

Theses numbers are NOT representative of the electorate as a whole. Too many Dems and Reps and not enough Ind.

For only the Top 4 candidates, Trump is at 49 followed by Cruz at 25.

The problem is the number of people who say that they consider Trump a "side show".  Dem 76, Rep 36, Ind 56.  So what can be observed with this is that many Reps or Indies will desert the party at this time if Trump is the nominee.

And yet the Trumpkins are the ones being castigated about throwing the election to Hillary if we don't support an other than Trump nominee?  Go figure............




PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #901 on: December 20, 2015, 12:47:52 PM »
Looking at this Obama-Boehner-Ryan budget, what was needed was conservative strength and conservative leadership and it was needed way earlier in this process.  It didn't come from anywhere in congress so it has to come from a new administration.

All here are in agreement I believe that last time R's controlled both chambers plus the White House, government was expanded.  Distracted by war you could say, but they grew the government and made things worse.

We can't survive another W Bush on the issue of failing to limit and reform government.  Of these 3 who would do it best if elected?   Among the group here, I see 3 different answers to that.  `Of the who can and will get elected?  We are watching the numbers on that. 

Trump projects strength in leadership, but I don't know to what extent his priorities match mine.  I know Cruz is conservative and strong and true enough, but I don't know that he can win.  Pat disagrees but I say Rubio is sufficiently conservative, would stand up on principle on all priorities including immigration to the best extent possible.  There will be legalization in different amounts depending on who is negotiating and how it goes, but if Rubio fails to secure the borders and deal effectively with visa issues first as promised, his legitimacy is lost and he knows it, like HW Bush on read on my lips.  I don't see that happening.  I see a growth economy and positive agenda coming out of a Rubio election, and at this point I see him as the only one who is running to win the general election.

There is no reform of the R party or the country or lesson learned that comes out of losing this Presidential election no matter which one wins the nomination.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #902 on: December 20, 2015, 01:44:18 PM »

Quote
Looking at this Obama-Boehner-Ryan budget, what was needed was conservative strength and conservative leadership and it was needed way earlier in this process.  It didn't come from anywhere in congress so it has to come from a new administration

We were promised "conservative strength and leadership" in 2010, 2012 and 2014. It never happened. Why should it be any different under Rubio?  (Of course, he can't even catch Trump in one state, needless to say win the nomination.

How is Rubio going to win the nomination? What is his "road map" where his support exists now?

As a throw away to DMG. here is the latest Iowa poll.  Cruz expanding the lead. Carson support moving to Cruz, unlike in other states where most Carson is going to Trump.

 Relevance? President Kasich. President Huckabee.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #903 on: December 20, 2015, 03:22:29 PM »
Maybe this is the video that ISIS is showing to recruit

https://youtu.be/Hkge4bVRQ08?t=197

If you haven't watch Trump rallies, notice in the video the pull he has. Where is pull like that for Hillary, Cruz, Rubio?

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #904 on: December 20, 2015, 03:28:15 PM »
Needed to add something to the Iowa poll...

Quote
[…]  For the October, November, and December waves, all respondents from previous waves were contacted to participate. Recontact rates ranged from 42% to 53% for each state. In addition, new respondents were selected from the YouGov panel each wave. Approximately 60% of the October wave consists of reinterviews, with the remainder coming from new additions. Approximately 70% of the November wave consists of reinterviews from the previous waves, and approximately 90% of the December wave consists of reinterviews. (link and complex pdf methodology below)

So they are recontacting people that they had contacted earlier to see where they stand now. And who knows what the criteria was for selecting those that they would recontact.

This is not a real poll of where all people stand today.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #905 on: December 20, 2015, 04:02:50 PM »
"If you haven't watch Trump rallies, notice in the video the pull he has. Where is pull like that for Hillary, Cruz, Rubio?"
"... where his support exists now?"

No doubt DT was the man of the year - 2015.  Bummer for him it didn't happen to be an election year.    )


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #906 on: December 20, 2015, 06:18:21 PM »
Trump is now where Giuliani and Hillary were in 2008.

=================

No, There Won't Be a Brokered National Convention
By Michael Barone
December 18, 2015
All around the political blogosphere you can find folks smacking their lips over the prospect of a "brokered" Republican national convention. They look forward to the spectacle of delegates assembling in Cleveland with no candidate having a majority, of multiple ballots with governors, floor demonstrations after nominating speeches, congressmen running as favorite sons and delegates demanding that state delegations be polled.


Political junkies relish the idea of watching hours of convention proceedings with the same frisson of ignorance about the outcome that makes sports broadcasts the only live television still commanding a large audience.


I have bad news for those looking forward to a brokered convention. It. Isn't. Going. To. Happen.


That's because it's impossible for party national conventions to serve the same function they did for more than a century after the first Democratic National Convention assembled in Baltimore in May 1832.


Over those years the national convention was a unique communications medium, the only place where politicians from across the nation could meet face-to-face, conduct confidential negotiations and reach an agreement.


In those days, men of business -- and the few women of business -- communicated with each other in written letters. Presidents and party chairmen, like business executives and middle managers, spent their days reading their correspondence and dictating responses to stenographers and secretaries. At the end of the day they would proofread the letters, sign them and see that they were put in the mail.


One such man of business was James A. Farley, Franklin Roosevelt's postmaster general and 1932 and 1936 campaign manager, who signed all his correspondence in green ink. In his memoirs Farley wrote how he arrived at Chicago's Union Station for the 1932 national convention with no idea how many delegates his candidate had or how he could put together enough votes for the nomination. There was no medium in which he could engage in serious negotiations except face-to-face during the convention.


Farley also explained how he correctly predicted that Roosevelt would carry 46 of 48 states in 1936. During the fall campaign he took the extraordinary step of placing a long-distance phone call every week to one well-informed politician in each non-Southern state. To double check, he placed another long-distance call to each the weekend before the election.


Long-distance calls in those days were placed through operators and were expensive -- $1 a minute when average earnings were maybe $50 a week. The first direct distance dialing call was not placed until 1951. They weren't available in major cities until the late 1950s and countrywide until the 1960s.


In those days politicians outside of Congress didn't see much of each other in person. Train travel was time-consuming and plane travel hazardous. Regularly scheduled jet travel began when the Boeing 707 was launched in 1958.


It's no coincidence, then, that the last multi-ballot national convention was in 1952, when Democrats nominated Adlai Stevenson. As long-distance calls and jet flights became more common, some of the communication that could occur only at the convention started happening earlier.


The parties' switch to choosing most delegates in primaries, between 1968 and 1972, also changed things. Before many delegates were chosen by party bosses and did their bidding, like the Tammany, New York, mayor who, when asked who his police commissioner would be, said, "They haven't told me yet." You had to wait until the convention to see how these people would vote.


Not so after 1968, when CBS' Martin Plissner conducted the first media delegate count. Network delegate counts were vindicated in the close 1976 contest between Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. In 1984 Walter Mondale, just short of a majority after the last primary, got commitments from additional delegates and gave their names and numbers to Associated Press delegate counter David Lawsky. By noon the next day he was effectively nominated.


So what happens if no Republican candidate emerges with a delegate majority from the 2016 primaries and caucuses? Does everybody wait for the convention to convene in Cleveland to see who emerges as the nominee?


The answer is yes -- if you do a few things first, such as ban long-distance telephone calls, ban jet travel, ban media delegate counts and shut down the Internet. Then the national convention can function again as national conventions did up through the 1950s.


Otherwise, the negotiations and shenanigans that used to go on only at national conventions will be happening all around us -- as they already are and have been for many months.




COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM
Michael Barone is Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner, co-author of The Almanac of American Politics and a contributor to Fox News.
 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
In case no one notices
« Reply #907 on: December 21, 2015, 07:08:23 AM »
In case no one notices, Lindsay Graham has dropped out of the race.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #908 on: December 21, 2015, 07:11:38 AM »
How will his support be divided up? All two voters...........
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #909 on: December 21, 2015, 07:27:36 AM »
Interesting analysis of the different types of polling methods and why Trump performs better with online polls.

http://morningconsult.com/2015/12/why-donald-trump-performs-better-in-online-polling/?utm_content=23140621&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: In case no one notices
« Reply #910 on: December 21, 2015, 07:56:57 AM »
In case no one notices, Lindsay Graham has dropped out of the race.

This changes everything.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #911 on: December 21, 2015, 08:20:40 AM »
You are right. With Mrs. Graham out, Trump is finished..............again..................and again..................and again..........................
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #912 on: December 21, 2015, 09:19:06 AM »
You are right. With Mrs. Graham out, Trump is finished..............again..................and again..................and again..........................

Rubio is hoping and praying he doesn't get the endorsement of Graham and Bush.

DDF

  • Guest
Re: In case no one notices
« Reply #913 on: December 21, 2015, 11:12:10 AM »
In case no one notices, Lindsay Graham has dropped out of the race.

This changes everything.

Who is going to get all three of Graham's voters?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #914 on: December 21, 2015, 12:04:39 PM »
They go to

McCain  (They still think that it is 2008.)
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
2016 Presidential Undersampling Trump Supporter?, Sanders leads Trump by 13 pts
« Reply #915 on: December 22, 2015, 06:34:31 AM »
Isn't that what we call it when Trump loses a third of his support in 2-3 days?

Quinnipiac has Trump back in the 20s, near his 'ceiling'.  Cruz almost within the margin of error.  Rubio flat but still relevant in third place.

Cruz and Rubio tied and within one point of Clinton.

Trump loses to Clinton by 7 points and Trump loses to Bernie Sanders by 13 points.

Election Polls,  Tuesday, December 22
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton   Quinnipiac   Clinton 47, Trump 40   Clinton +7
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton   Quinnipiac   Clinton 44, Cruz 44   Tie
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton   Quinnipiac   Rubio 43, Clinton 44   Clinton +1
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders   Quinnipiac   Sanders 51, Trump 38   Sanders +13
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders   Quinnipiac   Sanders 43, Cruz 44   Cruz +1
General Election: Rubio vs. Sanders   Quinnipiac   Rubio 45, Sanders 42   Rubio +3

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: In case no one notices
« Reply #916 on: December 22, 2015, 06:40:38 AM »
In case no one notices, Lindsay Graham has dropped out of the race.


He wanted to spend more time with his pool boy Lorenzo.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, Ramesh Ponnuru, Cruz v Rubio
« Reply #917 on: December 22, 2015, 06:55:33 AM »
A pretty good summary of this big war over small differences on three fronts (even though he discloses being a friend of Cruz for two decades).

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428855/ted-cruz-marco-rubio-republican-primary-fight

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #918 on: December 22, 2015, 07:39:00 AM »
DMG,

 :-D I knew that when I looked, you would have posted this. Unfortunately, Q once again fails to give a full breakdown of the demographics.  But ignoring that:

1. Q is consistently about 10 points less with their Trump support than almost all other polls. Apparently, it is something in their polling method.

2. All other polls show Trump generally at double the Cruz support. This poll says 4? 

3. Q polled far more Reps than Dems.  And there is just that little bit of difference between Hillary and all other candidates.  Huh?  This makes no sense.

4. Every other poll shows Trump leading at 50 on the economy. Yet here he has 19.  In other categories, the same occurs as well.

5. Rubio is 3 points higher than Trump on jobs, but is at 12% support.

6. Q has been the poll that started the Carson surge.

7. Trump is leading by 15 to 20 points in every state poll other than Iowa, but only 4 nationally.  Didn't know that Iowa was so heavily populated that it could swing the country.

8. Every other post debate poll had Trump winning by double digits, but Cruz won it 40 - 20 in this poll.

The numbers do not add up in any way, shape or form. Wonder if CFG paid for this poll.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #919 on: December 22, 2015, 07:46:43 AM »
Pat,  Good points but I already conceded they were underpolling Trump supporters.    :wink:

More interesting is to ponder why Sanders is performing better than Clinton against Trump.

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #920 on: December 22, 2015, 08:38:54 AM »
Yeah, Sanders better than Clinton............

There is no consistency in the Q poll when you look at the questions asked. It makes no sense, especially when other polls are consistently different. What is Q doing that others do not do?

How can Q poll 508 Reps and 462 Dems and get the head to head results that they do? 

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #921 on: December 22, 2015, 03:04:04 PM »
Just so DMG does not get too excited about the Q poll, here is Reuters 5 day rolling average.   :evil:

December 22, 2015

672 RESPONDENTS

Donald Trump     36.7%

Ben Carson         11.3%

Ted Cruz            11.0%

Marco Rubio         8.3%

Jeb Bush               6.7%

Wouldn’t vote        6.3%

Chris Christie         4.3%

Mike Huckabee      4.2%

Carly Fiorina          3.6%

Rick Santorum       3.1%

Rand Paul             2.7%

John Kasich          1.4%

George Pataki        0.2%

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #922 on: December 22, 2015, 04:26:23 PM »
Here is the Q Internals regarding the sample.  Comments below in red:


 REGISTERED VOTERS....................................
                                                                                                                               COLLEGE DEG
                                      Tot         Rep       Dem        Ind            Men           Wom          Yes         No
Weighted Percentage        100%     30%      33%        28%          47%            53%        32%      68%
Unweighted                     1,140      374       360         334            610              530          587       553
MoE (+/-%)                      2.90     5.07       5.17        5.36           3.97             4.26        4.04       4.17

The sample of Registered Voters looks to be pretty good. Weighting appears to be fairly correct.
 
AGE IN YRS..............
                                       18-34      35-49      50-64      65+
Weighted Percentage           20%       26%        28%    21%
Unweighted                         117         191         364      423
MoE (+/-%)                       9.06        7.09         5.14     4.76

Here lies a major problem. Based upon other polls and past elections, the 50-64 and 65+ brackets are woefully low. Normally, these are several points higher and the younger brackets lower. This would reduce Trump numbers because he performs better among the older groups.
 

REPUBLICANS/REPUBLICAN LEANERS.....................................
 Wht POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
 
                                                  Tea        BrnAgn     CONSERVATIVE Mod/                                  COLLEGE DEG
                                    Tot         Party       Evang        Very        Smwht      Lib       Men     Wom      Yes       No

Weighted Percentage     100%       17%         31%         34%         35%       29%     54%     46%      31%    69%
Unweighted                   508            88           156          173           179        146      306      202       252      256
MoE (+/-%)                  4.35        10.45         7.85          7.45         7.32        8.11     5.60      6.90     6.17     6.13

What a mess this one is. 

Tea Party at 17%, too high. These would go to Cruz.

Born Again Evangelicals, way to high. This would reflect again in a push for Cruz.

Conservative/Moderate, probably about correct.

Men and women..probably about correct. Most forecasts are suggesting that Trump is going to bring out more men, so this would be consistent. 

College level, probably correct.

Bottom line, some of the demographics are out of normal range and would provide Cruz more support than with normal levels. Looks like this was a partial push poll.
PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #923 on: December 22, 2015, 04:28:32 PM »
BTW, for the GOP group, only 4% valued gun ownership higher than climate change in the Q poll.  That by itself says there is a huge problem with the sample.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #924 on: December 22, 2015, 06:23:49 PM »
What makes you think Trump might will open his mouth and insert his foot sometime over the 6-8 mos between when he is the nominee of he wins the states he is leading in and the general election?  Just because he does that now on a regular basis...

Today Trump said Hillary got schlonged in 2008.  Yes she did but that's not what the leading candidate for President is supposed to say.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/22/donald-trumps-schlonged-a-linguistic-investigation/
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-chooses-odd-yiddish-vulgarity-to-slam-hillary-clinton/ar-BBnOPb4?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=wispr


ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #925 on: December 22, 2015, 08:10:17 PM »
So what is Trump supposed to say? (Hell, most people did not even know what schlonged meant until the press made a big deal of it.) 

So what if what he said is not supposed to be Presidential? Well, Presidential image ended with Clinton and his whoring ways. And it worsened with O'bummer, though one wonders how it could have gotten any worse? And now with Her Highness, it will get even worse. It's time to end this pc crap.

Guess what? His supporters love it when he talks like that. Why? Because he speaks like then and doesn't give a damn about what the elite thinks,

But since according to the elite on both sides we are nothing more than Vulgarians, racists, nazi's, uneducated rednecks, hicks, homophobes, exnophobes, slobs and whatever else you can think of, maybe we should just do like in corporations and sign proxies giving others the right to vote on our behalf since we are not smart enough to understand what the world is about.

Oh wait, we have been doing that for the last two decades and look what it has got us? Dole, McCain, Romney, Boehner, McConnell, Ryan and all the others.  Guess the elites are just as stupid as us.




PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #926 on: December 22, 2015, 08:52:40 PM »
Donald J. Trump Retweeted
Jeff Greenfield ‏@greenfield64 2h2 hours ago

On further review, Trump is right on this. “I got schlonged” is a commonplace NY way of saying: “I lost big time,” w/out genital reference.
PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #927 on: December 23, 2015, 12:04:22 AM »
Sorry, but as a NY Jew born and raised, the word "schlong" pertains to the penis.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #928 on: December 23, 2015, 05:12:25 AM »
"Well, Presidential image ended with Clinton and his whoring ways. And it worsened with O'bummer, though one wonders how it could have gotten any worse?"

I agree.  This is one of the reasons I love GW Bush.  Many of us could rightly question his policies but I for one really appreciated and respected his 100% effort at bringing dignity back to the WH.

He kicked the sleaze out the back door.   He led by example. 

I can live with Trump's verbal indiscretions for now.   But if he turns out to be a lib in his policies I won't be able to tolerate it.

Dignity, respect, exemplary behavior, honesty is very important to me.  Without at least a semblance of that we have anarchy.

None of us are perfect but....

 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #929 on: December 23, 2015, 07:22:39 AM »
Yes, he clearly is saying, penetrated by a penis, orifice unspecified.

This is a gender discriminatory term as a woman could not be at the other end of a schlonging without artificial or surgical adaptation. 

Terrible gender bigotry with the analogy in that the male end is associated with the winning and the female side with losing, getting schlonged.

Along with Megyn Kelly "bleeding out of wherever", is Trump bringing dignity back?  Not so much!  Not exactly the return of Reagan or even George W to the White House.  Even Jimmy Carter was so clean that the admission of lust became a major scandal.


Previous usage Trump can point to for cover:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yurpga7CXDE
NPR in their Geraldine Ferraro obit.



ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #930 on: December 23, 2015, 10:58:26 AM »
So Jeff Greenfield who does not like Trump is not credible. 

Would it have made any difference if Trump had said that Hillary got "screwed" in the election? Probably for the Trump haters..............but for the working class, no.

Actually, Trump's comment was GREAT. He uses a throw away line and the entire media is once again talking about it. More free publicity. Bet the rest of the candidates wish they were getting the publicity. (BTW, publicity is good even if it sounds bad. In this case, it just cements Trump supporters to him. Others will find the whole thing just another media hit job, and only the Trump deniers will jump on it.)

How many people do you actually think knew what schlong meant? Even more, how many really care? And if the media had not jumped on it, few would even know that the statement was ever made.

This is just another diversionary tactic to distract from what Trump is saying because the media and the elitists do not want their apple cart disrupted. Same as with Megyn Kelly and the bleeding comment.  If you remember, Trump had previously made the same comment about a Fox male anchor.  (So maybe the anchor was transgendered.) No one made a fuss at that time. Just when it was the Ice Princess Prima Donna Kelly.

Yes, let's bring back dignity with some weak kneed RINO candidate. That way, no one will pay attention to what is being passed that screws the middle class over again and again.

Let's also keep campaigning on subjects that will never be changed:

1. Abortion. It is here to stay, but it makes a good distraction from what is otherwise going on, and it keeps generating money for those on each side of the issue.

2. Defunding Planned Parenthood. Another distraction which will never be changed, but keeps bringing in money.

3. Balanced budget. Something else that will never be changed, except with tax increases. (Yeah, I know...Trump.)

4. Repeal of ObamaCare. It can never be fully repealed, only modified. After all, there are all these new people with insurance who are subsidized and if repealed, what happens there? Does one simply forget about that now?

5.  Social Security reform. Neither side has the guts to do what is needed, so it will remain the same. But it does remain as another election distraction.

6. Immigration reform. Nothing substantial going to happen there. COC wants the cheap labor.

7. Military spending........more distraction. And more crony capitalism. Think the F-35 brought in to also serve as a replacement for the A-10. No military leader is going to take an F-35 and put it into a Close Air Support role. Too much danger of losing them to ground fire and other weapon systems. That is, even if it can dogfight.

I could go on and on but all of this stuff is designed to keep the American public divided and separated. That way, the DC elites and Wall Street can continue to reap the benefits at the expense of the people.

PPulatie

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential - New Party
« Reply #931 on: December 23, 2015, 11:02:19 AM »
Let's see. Trump had to provide a no 3rd Party pledge.  What happened?

1.  Bush and others making talk about a 3rd Party run.

2. Bill Kristol now on a 3rd Party run.

What is good for the GOP is not good for others.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/12/21/bill-kristol-well-start-new-party-trump-wins-nomination/
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, who is the betting favorite?
« Reply #932 on: December 23, 2015, 12:06:30 PM »
Strangely, while another guy leads in the Republican polls, Rubio still leads in betting odds, where professionals put their money on the eventual outcome. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner

All the candidates seem to be treating Marco Rubio as the front runner as well:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/marco-rubios-opponents-treating-him-like-the-front-runner/article/2578979

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #933 on: December 23, 2015, 12:11:34 PM »
Bush and his voter (singular) aren't going to start a new party.  Nobody even wants his endorsement.

Bill Kristol is an individual with freedom of speech, not an official of the Republican party.

As stated with Trump, something like 44 states have a loser law where you can run and lose on the ballot in one party in the primary and then get on the ballot of another party in the general election.  Who does that leave, Romney, Ford, Dole?

PP is successfully pushing over straw men.   )

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #934 on: December 23, 2015, 12:26:02 PM »
Bill Kristol represents the old GOPe as well as many others. Then there was the DC dinner with Prebius in attendance where the talk was about manipulating the convention to get their candidate in....denied by Prebius of course.

Then you have Super Pacs pushing for a 3rd Party candidate if Trump wins. Also you have the Romney threat of a 3rd Party. And there have been GOP officials make remarks about it was better to support Hillary rather than Trump, also against the pledge to support the GOP nominee. Where there is smoke,  there is fire.

Straw men?   :-D   No I am along with millions others pushing over an old and useless party that exists only to keep itself in power and money.  Just like the old Communist Party in the 1980's. 

It's time for them to go.....
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #935 on: December 23, 2015, 12:49:06 PM »
So Jeff Greenfield who does not like Trump is not credible.  

Would it have made any difference if Trump had said that Hillary got "screwed" in the election? Probably for the Trump haters..............but for the working class, no.

Actually, Trump's comment was GREAT. He uses a throw away line and the entire media is once again talking about it. More free publicity. Bet the rest of the candidates wish they were getting the publicity. (BTW, publicity is good even if it sounds bad. In this case, it just cements Trump supporters to him. Others will find the whole thing just another media hit job, and only the Trump deniers will jump on it.)

How many people do you actually think knew what schlong meant? Even more, how many really care? And if the media had not jumped on it, few would even know that the statement was ever made.

This is just another diversionary tactic to distract from what Trump is saying because the media and the elitists do not want their apple cart disrupted. Same as with Megyn Kelly and the bleeding comment.  If you remember, Trump had previously made the same comment about a Fox male anchor.  (So maybe the anchor was transgendered.) No one made a fuss at that time. Just when it was the Ice Princess Prima Donna Kelly.

Yes, let's bring back dignity with some weak kneed RINO candidate. That way, no one will pay attention to what is being passed that screws the middle class over again and again.

Let's also keep campaigning on subjects that will never be changed:

1. Abortion. It is here to stay, but it makes a good distraction from what is otherwise going on, and it keeps generating money for those on each side of the issue.

2. Defunding Planned Parenthood. Another distraction which will never be changed, but keeps bringing in money.

3. Balanced budget. Something else that will never be changed, except with tax increases. (Yeah, I know...Trump.)

4. Repeal of ObamaCare. It can never be fully repealed, only modified. After all, there are all these new people with insurance who are subsidized and if repealed, what happens there? Does one simply forget about that now?

5.  Social Security reform. Neither side has the guts to do what is needed, so it will remain the same. But it does remain as another election distraction.

6. Immigration reform. Nothing substantial going to happen there. COC wants the cheap labor.

7. Military spending........more distraction. And more crony capitalism. Think the F-35 brought in to also serve as a replacement for the A-10. No military leader is going to take an F-35 and put it into a Close Air Support role. Too much danger of losing them to ground fire and other weapon systems. That is, even if it can dogfight.

I could go on and on but all of this stuff is designed to keep the American public divided and separated. That way, the DC elites and Wall Street can continue to reap the benefits at the expense of the people.

You keep defining a coalition less than 50%.  Abortion IS a big deal.  Trump gets that or it wouldn't have been worth his flip-flop.

Defunding Planned Parenthood is fundamental to any positive change on about a dozen levels, one being equal protection under the law if you are not concerned with the illegality and morality of killing and selling off body parts.  It is crony capitalism which is banned in my interpretation of the constitution.  It is also the state establishing a religion.

Megyn Kelly didn't deserve that and you have to be deep into the political world to know beyond that Fox is far right to know that they aren't.  Trump brought on the accusation himself and then demonstrated it.

Schlonging and giving and getting a Lewinski are terms and visions that ought not come out of the Oval Office.  This is 'GREAT' if distraction instead of action is the objective.  " It just cements Trump supporters to him."  Perfect if again your goal is a coaltion far below 50%.  He gets attention and it divides instead of unites.  I know the polls yet keep getting reminded that (as a 1%er says) Trump isn't a serious candidate.

"How many people do you actually think knew what schlong meant?"  - Unlike Crafty, I was born and raised in the midwest, hardly knew a Jew in my childhood, don't speak Hebrew, but I know what schlong is.  Yes he could have said she got fucked or screwed.  Raped is more the meaning; she didn't consent to what Barack did to her in 2008.  It's all still locker room or playground stuff, not Oval Office material.

Let's bring back "Weak kneed RINOs."   - Again, you are capable of arguing against more than an imaginary straw man.  Cruz is a solid conservative, an anti-RINO and Rubio is anything but weak kneed.  He is authentic, tea party, disagrees with you on the edges of only one (important) issue, and is the best communicator in a generation, many say.  

Obamcare is going to fundamentally changed - even if we let Bernie Sanders do it.

Immigration reform is going to happen - unless we nominate someone who loses to Hillary.

Military spending is more than a distraction.  We are disarming while enemies are arming and proliferating.

"all of this stuff is designed to keep the American public divided and separated"  - I know you mean that but it is easily turned around to describe almost everything Trump is saying.

Why not answer two questions on Trump and please link his answer:

a)  If you count families, children etc of the illegals, the number kicked around is 20 million people living among us.  It is his marquee issue, so show us where he specifies how many he will actually round up and send home and exactly how will it be done.  Rubio asks what to do with people who have been here 10-12 years of more which I believe is 60% of them.  What evidence is there to make us believe Trump will send any or all of them home?  When he says, they all go with no answer to how, I don't count that as a serious answer or policy, just a sure way to lose the general election and ensure they all stay.

b)  What are the limits that stop abuse of the private takings clause of Trump's imaginary constitution it the 4th, 5th and 9th amendments of the Bill of Rights no longer apply.  (About my 6th time trying to get this answered.)  What kind of justices will he appoint that also have their own constitution and what else does it say or not say in it?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 01:10:49 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential, low ceiling is still his problem
« Reply #936 on: December 23, 2015, 01:13:23 PM »
Funny that he runs from inside the party and brings new people in - to destroy it.  Since he is winning in this party, why not reform it from the inside.  Obama is the de facto head of the Dem party.  What is his pull and influence versus Debby Blabbermouth?  Others in the R party are 'plotting' to get their own guy elected, how do you spell wah, wah for crying victimhood?  Meanwhile the candidate offers silence on the other issues important to people like me and hides from specifics on his own issues.  He won't even have to wiggle to shake free of conservatism in the general election.  He never claimed to be one.

Speaking of schlongs, he alternatively could have had the balls to run from outside the two parties in the first place rather than using the building that someone else built.

There has always (in my lifetime) been a contest between some form of RINOs who act like Democrats to get reelected and conservatives.  ( A Choice Not an Echo, 1964, written by a Trump supporter).  Washington isn't run the way we would like because we haven't been winning enough primaries and elections.

And if you do want to win, don't intentionally alienate 60% of the people.

Trump's problems are his own doing and they are the flip side of his strengths.  Like Jeb but in a different way, he is the one who chooses to not be on my side.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 01:19:09 PM by DougMacG »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #937 on: December 23, 2015, 01:37:28 PM »
DMG,

I will reply to your posts later. Time to do some work.
PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #938 on: December 23, 2015, 02:14:38 PM »
DMG,
I will reply to your posts later. Time to do some work.

Understood.  Just voicing my own frustrations.

There is no doubt that Trump is connecting with people on their problems.   I question his solutions.

I ran a for-rent ad for a nice condo in Florida and got no response in 3 weeks.  I ran a craigslist ad offering to pay someone here $20 to serve eviction papers today and got 20 replies in 10 hours counting overnight.  Tried to reach and get someone to do it and still can't get it arranged.  Strange world and strange economy we live in.  No one outside of the rich has money and no one it seems is willing to go out of their way to earn a little.

Everyone i meet in some parts of my life, sports etc., seems to be top 1% rich and everyone I meet in other parts of my life, rentals etc. seems to be dead broke.  What I see is motivation and work-ethic inequality.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2015, 02:16:42 PM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Maybe she's just fear mongering to raise money?
« Reply #939 on: December 23, 2015, 04:41:28 PM »
Hillary Hints At Defeats In Iowa And NH
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on December 23, 2015
On the heels of polls showing Bernie Sanders chopping 15 points off Hillary's lead in Iowa -- narrowing her advantage to 50-45 -- Hillary Clinton has sent out an email to her supporters today (Wednesday, Dec. 23) warning them to brace themselves for the chance that she might lose Iowa or New Hampshire.

In a highly unusual email headlined "If We Lose Iowa Or New Hampshire", Hillary speculates that she might meet defeat in the first two contests with Bernie Sanders.

Urging her supporters to be "realistic" and warning that "winning the nomination is no sure thing," she appeals for money to rev up her campaign.

Anticipating the possibility -- or likelihood -- of one or two early defeats, she writes: "If we lose in Iowa or New Hampshire, we're going to need to dig in and work that much harder to make sure we win the nomination. I'm going to fight as hard as I can to earn every last vote."

The stunning admission that Sanders might capture one or even both of the two earliest states is unprecedented.  Sanders has always led in New Hampshire with RealClearPolitics.com polling average showing him up but 51-43 over the last seven polls.

But, in Iowa, once considered safe for Hillary, the only post-debate poll, by CNN, has her ahead by only 50-45, a dramatic comedown from the lead PPP found prior to the debate of 52-34.

For Hillary to admit, this far in advance, that she might lose Iowa and/or New Hampshire, we can only speculate on what her private polls must be showing.

After Iowa and New Hampshire on the nominating calendar come South Carolina, where Hillary can likely count on a firewall since African-Americans dominate the Democratic contest.  Sanders has repeatedly trailed far behind Hillary there and among black voters.

But then it is on to Nevada and the March 1 primaries.  If Hillary limps into these states, having lost both New Hampshire and Iowa, she can be in real trouble. 

Since the modern primary system was created in 1972, only George McGovern in '72 and Bill Clinton in '92 has ever gotten the Democratic nomination after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire.  Nine times, the candidate who lost the first two states lost the nomination.

Ominous implications for Hillary.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #940 on: December 23, 2015, 07:31:29 PM »
Dick is fun to read and he does sometimes have a unique take but this:

"Ominous implications for Hillary"

Yeah sure.  I'm holding my breath....

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #941 on: December 24, 2015, 06:51:50 AM »
Dick is fun to read and he does sometimes have a unique take but this:
"Ominous implications for Hillary"
Yeah sure.  I'm holding my breath....

Hillary copying Bernie on policy and philosophy while potentially losing Iowa and NH to him and yet still beating the R front runner is a reminder to conservatives of how far we have NOT come over the last decade of liberal failure.

A little more detail on that CNN poll favoring Trump.  If you want to win the election you need to pick the guy at 10%, not 39%.  How that is going to happen, I have no idea...  Aren't we a bunch of tough conservatives, not forgiving Rubio for his gang of 8 error, and willing to spend the next decade living the government involved 'Life of Julia' under Pres. Hillary Clinton while she packs the Supreme Court with nine young liberals who could give a rat's ass about our creed and former rights.
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton   CNN/ORC   Clinton 49, Trump 47   Clinton +2
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton   CNN/ORC   Clinton 46, Cruz 48   Cruz +2
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton   CNN/ORC   Rubio 49, Clinton 46   Rubio +3
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Remember, this was a poll favorable to Trump, and undercounting Rubio, 39-10!

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #942 on: December 24, 2015, 08:35:35 AM »
Long night crunching numbers. More to follow. But in the schlong view of thought..........guess that the expression has been used before in politics.  And, it was the paragon of virtue Truman holding up the paper.  Much ado about nothing.  But

Trump is finished!!!!  (for the 872nd time)

PPulatie

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #943 on: December 24, 2015, 08:41:22 AM »
Very funny!

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #944 on: December 24, 2015, 09:47:20 AM »
DMG, To your comments above:

1.   Abortion will NEVER be reversed and that is the reality of the situation. It is used to divide the country and to get political donations for the advocates on each side. It may be an issue to a segment of the right, but most conservatives I know support abortion. It is the moderate conservatism position.

2.   Defunding Planned Parenthood falls in the same category as abortion.

3.   Megyn Kelly did not deserve it? You forget that in the debate she, Baier and Wallace deliberately set up Trump for a fail. First with the pledge and then the war on women. Baier even admitted afterword that they had alerted security and had a plan in place to have Trump forcibly removed. Is that not a set up and deserving of Trump’s reaction?

You also seem to forget that in the minutes earlier in the interview, Trump said the exact same thing about Baier. So was Trump suggesting he was a girl? Or did Trump plan to use it first on Baier so as to be able to use that as an excuse for the comment on Kelly?

You also ignore that Kelly was going after Trump every night on her program. Her attacks and her guests against Trump was at the level of MSNBC going after all Reps. And it continues to today.

But I guess that the above means nothing……

4.   Schlonging should not be coming out of the White House, etc.  And the less than 50% support. And Trump is not a serious candidate.

At least someone has the balls to attack the Dems, instead of laying down with them. And the support? Each poll brings him closer to 50% levels, even with 13 candidates in the race. If nominated, then most of those not supporting him should vote for him in the general election. If not, then blame them for a Hillary presidency.

Not a serious candidate? Even the pundits have given up on that argument.

5.   Cruz and Rubio? I almost wish that either would win and then watch what happens. They will flip and flop all over the place like they do now. Under them, TPP moves forward, Amnesty is granted. HIBI visas increase. Rubio gets us into a Syrian way and maybe one with Russia.

You complain about Trump changing his views from years ago, but ignore the Cruz/Rubio flip flops and also their connections to Big Money and the Super Pacs.

6.   How will Obamacare be changed? Certainly not repealed. It will have to be a compromise between the parties and Cruz has so totally pissed off his side, he could not get anything through. Rubio? Depends upon who is in his pockets at the time.

7.   Immigration reform. If you want Amnesty, both Cruz and Rubio will deliver it, no matter what they claim now.

8.   Military spending must be done with an eye to the force structure, not by politicians who push their local industry products. We have to ask serious questions about what is needed to meet the threats. First among the questions is “what is the threat”? What is needed to meet the threat?  We have to quit procuring weapon systems based upon the last war fought.

Right now, we have far too much “support” personnel and not enough shooters. We need to focus on increasing the shooters and design the weapon systems to support them. We don’t design weapon systems that take forever to bring into service and cost hundreds of millions per unit like the F-35 which appears to have serious deficiencies in what it can do?

9.   How to get rid of the illegals? You want full details. And the second he releases all details, everyone attacks him and starts to figure out ways to ensure any plans do not get implemented.

This is classic “Art of the Deal” Trump. You tell them what you can do, and then when they are ready, the negotiation occurs on what will happen. For example, with the proposal I just finished, I let the client know what I could do, what I brought to the table. Did I provide details of how I would do it? No way. Did I give them for a price what I could do the work with a small profit? No way. I provide them a price that is commiserate with the value of what I do. Trump is doing the same thing.

10.   You and I have different views on the Eminent Domain issue and the public interest which we will never agree on. As to what type of Judges to appoint, well that worked out well with Souter, Kennedy and Roberts, didn’t it?

11.   As to Trump bringing in new people into the party who will destroy it, the people that Trump is appealing to are the same people that the GOP has “claimed” that they wanted to bring into the Party. These people are more moderate and not purity ideologues. They come with their own desires, opinions and needs. Yet the GOP wants them to convert to the GOP fully and without retaining their own views. And if they do not convert, then the GOP does not want them. No wonder the GOP keeps losing.

The GOP left its base long ago. With people like Ryan, McConnell, Boehner, McCain, Romney and the other fools running things, they will not appeal to the base. That is why the GOP cannot win nationally any longer.  And until they change, they will continue to lose, and that is if they can even remain a viable party.

Parties must change to reflect the wishes and the views of the electorate, especially their base. If they don’t change, they will become more and more ineffective in the future as the base leaves them which is now occurring.  That is what is happening with the GOP and the Dems now.


BTW, when Trump made the Schlong comment, he knew exactly what he was doing. He was baiting Hillary and setting a trap which she has fallen into. She played the woman card as she loves to do when her position on something is weak or worse. Now, Trump can nail her on the woman card, doing something that no other candidate would ever do. That is bringing up the contradictions in her “support for woman”, and especially with issues like rape. Trump can beat her over the head on how Hillary would support Bill with the Bimbo eruptions. And it will be fun to watch.
PPulatie

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #945 on: December 24, 2015, 11:09:32 AM »
PP,
I assume you know that photo is faked?

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #946 on: December 24, 2015, 11:39:43 AM »
 :-D

Damn, you caught it!
PPulatie

DDF

  • Guest
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #947 on: December 24, 2015, 01:32:35 PM »
DMG.... I suppose the technical term would be "internment camps, pending repatriation." If you're here illegally, you have to go. You're already a criminal by legal definition and have no right to a voice, a hearing, or any other right other than to be repatriated post-haste.

I don't know what part of that is unclear, but I understand why people don't like that... because they have personal family members that will be deported. Too bad. Go back and do it legally, just like I had to with my own damn daughter. 1000's in legal bills and about two years in waiting.

Illegal aliens can pound sand as can their supporters.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
TrumpClinton poll: DEAD HEAT
« Reply #948 on: December 24, 2015, 05:51:15 PM »
Wow.   I think it is a CNN poll.

PP, check this out:

https://gma.yahoo.com/video/poll-results-show-trump-clinton-234317361.html

Crude grade school language "trumps" lies, sleaze, corruption  :-D :-o :lol:
« Last Edit: December 24, 2015, 05:53:31 PM by ccp »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #949 on: December 25, 2015, 08:14:10 AM »
ccp,

I saw that but did not post it. I did not want to ruin DMG's Christmas.  :-D

Much of the difference in the polls are the assumptions being made about turnout. If 2008 or 2012 election turnouts are the basis for the assumptions, then there is a huge problem. With 2008, we saw massive turnout for O'Bummer that had not been seen before. And with 2012, we saw a lack of GOP turnout due to Romney.

Can Trump turn out the numbers? All appearances so far seem to indicate yes. (Contrary to the NYT article last week, he does have a large GOTV effort in all the states. It is just "unconventional" from previous efforts.) Will the new turnout be greater than the GOP non-Trump stay at homes?  That will be the question.
PPulatie