Author Topic: 2016 Presidential  (Read 471582 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1050 on: February 11, 2016, 08:07:46 AM »
Hillary Lost Because She Lied
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on February 11, 2016
New Hampshire exit polls in the Democratic Primary indicate that Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton among self-described liberals by 60-39. Okay.  But he also beat her among moderates and conservatives by a nearly identical 60-37 margin.

They also show that among the one-third of all voters who said "honesty and trustworthiness" were the most important qualities of a candidate in determining their vote, Sanders beat Clinton by 95-5.
 
These data indicate that Sanders' victory was not the result of an ideological vote for a socialist but was due to a personal repudiation of a liar.  It was Hillary's dearth of personal ethics and her lack of veracity, not her political ideology or her issue positions, that led to her smashing defeat in New Hampshire.

So when Hillary sought to co-opt and plagiarize Bernie's rhetoric in her concession speech, she did nothing to solve the problem that brought her low.  Nor will any shift in her message or beheadings of her staff do much to help her. 

It is not her position on the banks, TARP, Glass-Steagall, or campaign finance reform that is dragging her down.  It is her email scandal, Benghazi, and her personal speeches for fees that are causing her candidacy to crash.

Hillary can change her issue positions as frequently and as totally as she changes her hair style.  She can flip on the Keystone Pipeline and flop on the Trans Pacific Trade Deal.  But she cannot go back and delete her lies, evasions, half-truths, and distortions.  They live on video tape and in our memories, ready to spring to life as soon as she lies again.

This personal reputation is not something a new consultant can fix.  All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put Hillary back together again.
New Hampshire means Hillary is outed.  It's downhill from here.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
The Coming Dem-adgeddon
« Reply #1053 on: February 12, 2016, 09:43:59 AM »
The Coming Dem-aggeddon . .

In 2008, we saw the Democrats, after a long, hard-fought and divisive primary, unite and win the general election by a big margin -- helped along by the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Can that party unite again?

It’s overstating it to say that the 2016 Democratic presidential primary is rigged. But it’s pretty reasonable to argue that the party’s establishment -- the Democratic National Committee, the elected lawmakers and movers and shakers -- have put a thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton that will be difficult to overcome:

This is what makes Clinton so powerful in the Democratic race -- even while she and Sanders battle it out among rank-and-file voters, she has a massive lead among superdelegates. Altogether, she already has 394 delegates and superdelegates to Sanders’s 44 -- a nearly ninefold lead.

Think about that -- we’ve had one tie (Iowa) and one landslide Sanders win (New Hampshire) and she’s ahead by 350 delegates.

Superdelegates can’t give Hillary the nomination if she keeps losing by landslides. But if it’s reasonably close, she could overcome the gap. According to the Associated Press, Democrats have 4,763 delegates in all; to win the nomination, you need 2,382. About 15 percent -- 712 -- of all of the delegates are “superdelegates.”

More background:

Q: Who gets to be a Superdelegate?

A: Every Democratic member of Congress, House and Senate, is a Superdelegate (240 total). Every Democratic governor is a Superdelegate (20 total). Certain “distinguished party leaders,” 20 in all, are given Superdelegate status. And finally, the Democratic National Committee names an additional 432 Superdelegates -- an honor that typically goes to mayors, chairs and vice-chairs of the state party, and other dignitaries.

Q: So they have way more importance than an ordinary voter?

A: Oh yeah. In 2008, each Superdelegate had about as much clout as 10,000 voters. It will be roughly the same in 2016.

In other words, in the most extreme scenario, if Sanders won 2,380 regular delegates and Hillary won 1,670 . . . a 58 percent to 42 percent split . . . and then all 712 superdelegates backed Hillary, she would finish with 2,382 and win the nomination.

That won’t happen, but it’s easier to imagine a scenario where a less overwhelming lead among super-delegates -- an 80/20 split? 75/25? -- helps Hillary overcome a more reasonable deficit among regular delegates.

Shane Ryan, writing at Paste, argues that Democrats would never do that:

Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.

This has already been an incredibly tense election, and Sanders voters are already expressing their unwillingness to vote for Clinton in the general election.

When you look at the astounding numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire, where more than 80 percent of young voters have chosen Sanders over Clinton, regardless of gender, it’s clear that Clinton already finds herself in a very tenuous position for the general election. It will be tough to motivate young supporters, but any hint that Bernie was screwed by the establishment will result in total abandonment.

Democrats win when turnout is high, and if the DNC decides to go against the will of the people and force Clinton down the electorate’s throat, they’d be committing political suicide.

Democrat elites would never do something insanely self-destructive and attack their own grassroots voters, right?

 “You’re all going to burn in hell, sinners!”

Hillary Clinton is not going to graciously concede to this little-known senator running to her left, who came out of nowhere and has the media swooning over his big crowds of young people on college campuses . . . again.

She and the Clinton team have a long history of pulling out all the stops to slime their opponents. Yesterday Representative John Lewis (D., Ga.) suggested Sanders is either exaggerating or lying about his youthful work in the civil rights movement:

An icon of the civil rights movement is casting doubt on the senator’s civil rights credentials.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., implied Sanders might be overstating his involvement in the movement of the 1960s, including the Vermont senator’s claim he marched with Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

“I never saw him. I never met him,” Lewis, a close ally of King’s, said of Sanders, in a response to a reporter’s question. Lewis was speaking Thursday at an event announcing the Congressional Black Caucus PAC supports Hillary Clinton over Sanders for the Democratic presidential nomination.
“I was chair of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966,” Lewis said. “I was involved with the sit-ins, the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery [Alabama] and directed [the] voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President [Bill] Clinton.”

If they have to paint Sanders as mentally unstable, or the destroyer of Medicare, they’ll do it. Remember Sanders’s bizarre 1972 newspaper column about rape fantasies? You really think Hillary Clinton will leave that untouched if she thinks Sanders is about to deny her the nomination?

And let’s face it, Bernie Sanders is doing his best possible job of convincing Democrats that Hillary Clinton represents an acquiescence to Wall Street at best and bribed subservience at worst. Last night at the debate, he came close to calling her a warmonger, saying, “In her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. I’m proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger.”

Do you see Democrats just hugging it out after the primaries? Letting bygones be bygones? Either Sanders wins, and the party has nominated a socialist in open revolt against the vast majority of the party’s leadership . . . or Hillary wins, and the Millennial Democrats watch the Clinton machine crush their vision for the party and the country through their trademarked shady, underhanded, ruthless tactics. In that scenario, it’s not unthinkable that a lot of Sanders activists conclude politics really is a rigged game, and walk away from traditional political activism entirely.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1054 on: February 13, 2016, 08:45:42 AM »
Debate tonight.  I am still pulling for Rubio.  More important than how he does seems to be what the story line coming out of this is.  His 'gaffe' is  lasting and fatal if he is not able to instantly prove that characterization is wrong.  The question of whether there is time to recove is intertwined with how strong the appeal of his competitors really is, and what kind of message do voters want to send.

Trump won NH big and leads in SC by double digits.  Yet 2/3rds of Republicans in both states aren't supporting him even though he has been leading for going on a year.  He still has the highest negatives, lousy general election appeal, and a ceiling much lower than his supporters can see. 

Cruz is (also) still competing to win a plurality, not a majority.  Everything I hear him say is aimed to prove he is the Senate's most conservative member, which he is, and the race's most conservative candidate, which he is.  Obama was the Senate's most liberal member (but didn't run on ideology).  Does that logic work in reverse for a conservative in a liberal media world?  I don't think so.  Cruz makes precious little effort to reach out and tell others why conservatism is better.   We are to assume he has the ability without seeing evidence of it.  The idea that the furthest right can win against the furthest left leaves out the wildcard possibility that a centrist choice might be added to the mix.  If we win just because the opponent is a crook or a socialist, the win won't translate into any change much less lasting change.

Kasich has a strong background, emphasizes moderation and competence, but has limited appeal.  His candidacy is reminiscent of other centrists who let us down.  He might make a fine President if this was a time for electing experience and competence.  But Trump and Sanders have read these times better; it is a time for a major directional shift, like the shift to the right we should have had after G.W. Bush.  (Instead we went left.)

Jeb is making an all out push in SC, for the 5th or 6th attempt at restarting.  Maybe SC voters can give him a clarifying message back. 

Christy is out.  What a jerk.  Yes he caught Rubio repeating himself, while they all do, intentionally, right while he was also telling us for the 19th time that he was once a federal prosecutor and therefore knows everything there is to know about fighting terrorism, after they are arrested.  Like the mistake of attacking Trump, those who have attacked Rubio have not benefited much from it.

It would have been nice to see Carson, Fiorina, Jindal, Walker, Nikki Haley and others all join forces in one camp if they want the nominee to be someone other than Trump or Cruz. It seems like the deadline for that is quickly approaching, if not past.  Maybe Bush can show that kind of leadership in his SC concession speech. 

Rubio got where he is by challenging the establishment.  In his first two years he was rated the Senate's third most conservative Senator, behind Jim Demint and Mike Lee, before Ted Cruz and Gang of 8.  His conservatism comes across to the middle with a softer edge than Cruz and others.  His message discipline was a strength, now a weakness to overcome.  His consistent lead in general election matchups will come back if his setback can be overcome - in the debates, in the media appearances and in the primary results.  If not, he is toast and I don't see a good outcome for this race.

P.S.  I wish Pat was here; he might know who benefits most from Gilmore leaving the race.  )

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1055 on: February 13, 2016, 09:45:24 AM »
Doug all good points and I agree with you on everything.

One reason we think that Rubio (or Cruz) may be good is their Latino heritage.

One would think that is the case but then I see this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/12/no-joke-trump-can-win-plenty-of-latinos.html    :-o

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
2nd post today
« Reply #1056 on: February 13, 2016, 09:56:04 AM »


Obviously Davide Alexrod is not my favorite guy, yet  sometimes he does make some good points that I can relate to and are not simply partisan:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/02/12/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-pronouns/

OTOH Obama could be the most "I" and "me" president that ever lived so his theory there falls apart.

Trump is an interesting example when looking at it from this perspective.  Surely he is about him but his message "make America great again" is about us.  And quite inclusive.
Kind of a paradox. 

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1057 on: February 14, 2016, 08:45:28 AM »
(What would Pat say?)  :-(   Pat always pointed to Huffington Post for poll conglomeration and Reuters for the most accurate, up to date poll. (?)

Over at HuffPost they show Trump leading Clinton in the NONE of the last 10 polls, now down by double digits on Reuters.  
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

They show Cruz leading Clinton in NONE of the last 7:  http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-cruz-vs-clinton

In contrast, Rubio is leading Clinton in 4 of the last 5: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-rubio-vs-clinton


Ted Cruz says how great his Supreme Court appointments will be.  But second place doesn't get to make court appointments.  Everything he said again last night was to prove he is most pure, not to prove most electable.

Donald Trump says he will make America great again, doesn't really say how, by winning again I guess.  But down 10 polls in a row when everyone knows both candidates well is not exactly winning again. Romney didn't make America great again and his agenda for the most part was as good or better than Trump's.  Nor did he make great Supreme Court appointments.  

Might as well endorse Hillary.
                                                 Clinton  Trump
Ipsos/Reuters   2/6 - 2/10   1,337 RV   44   34   10   Clinton +10
Morning Consult   2/3 - 2/7   2,197 RV   45   40   15   Clinton +5
Quinnipiac   2/2 - 2/4   1,125 RV   46   41   10   Clinton +5
PPP (D)   2/2 - 2/3   1,236 RV   47   40   13   Clinton +7
Ipsos/Reuters   1/30 - 2/3   1,434 RV   44   36   10   Clinton +8
Morning Consult   1/21 - 1/24   4,001 RV   45   39   16   Clinton +6
CNN   1/21 - 1/24   907 RV   48   47   4   Clinton +1
ABC/Post   1/20 - 1/24   850 RV   54   42   6   Clinton +12
Zogby (Internet)   1/19 - 1/20   843 LV   45   45   10   -
Morning Consult   1/14 - 1/17   4,060 RV   44   42   14   Clinton +2
NBC/WSJ   1/9 - 1/13   800 RV   51   41   -   Clinton +10

                                                 Clinton   Cruz
psos/Reuters   2/6 - 2/10   1,337 RV   44   34   12   Clinton +10
Morning Consult   2/3 - 2/7   2,197 RV   45   42   13   Clinton +3
Quinnipiac   2/2 - 2/4   1,125 RV   45   45   3   -
PPP (D)   2/2 - 2/3   1,236 RV   46   44   10   Clinton +2
Ipsos/Reuters   1/30 - 2/3   1,434 RV   44   34   11   Clinton +10
Morning Consult   1/21 - 1/24   4,001 RV   45   38   17   Clinton +7

                                               Rubio   Clinton
Morning Consult   2/3 - 2/7   2,197 RV   44   43   14   Rubio +1
Quinnipiac   2/2 - 2/4   1,125 RV   48   41   4   Rubio +7
PPP (D)   2/2 - 2/3   1,236 RV   46   44   10   Rubio +2
Morning Consult   1/21 - 1/24   4,001 RV   39   44   16   Clinton +5
CNN   1/21 - 1/24   907 RV   50   47   3   Rubio +3
« Last Edit: February 14, 2016, 08:50:16 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1058 on: February 14, 2016, 10:13:03 AM »
And I am not sure that should Clinton be forced out (not holding my breath) that Trump could beat Sanders or Biden.

Can we run all 3?  We get the conservatism of Cruz, the backbone of Cruz and Trump, the oratory skill of Trump, the likability of Rubio.    Maybe they can all marry and we get 3 for 1.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1061 on: February 17, 2016, 08:52:23 PM »
It gets even better-- Cruz invites Trump to follow through on his threat to sue so that he, Cruz, can get to be the one who deposes him!  OMFG!  Please let this come to pass!!!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1062 on: February 18, 2016, 06:32:53 AM »
When Does Marco Rubio Start Winning? And Where?

Our Tim Alberta asks a fair question about Marco Rubio: When does he start winning states?

Rubio’s team insists they are focused on winning a long-term delegate fight against Trump and Cruz. Yet both of those candidates have already notched wins. Sooner or later, to sustain the perception of viability, Rubio will need to win somewhere. And it’s not unreasonable to ask, as Miller did: If Rubio can’t win here, with most of the state’s Republican apparatus supporting him, where can he?

The danger for Rubio isn’t that he flops without a first-place showing here. South Carolina, at this early stage and with six candidates still alive, isn’t a must-win for anyone. But with Haley now on board, and the wind clearly at his back, Rubio would be devastated by finishing behind Cruz. That’s the scenario Cruz’s campaign -- which is deceptively strong on the ground here -- is teeing up as the media seizes on the narrative of Rubio’s rise. (Polls showed the two senators battling for second place behind Trump prior to Haley’s endorsement.)

To be clear: Rubio’s expectations are rightfully high here not just because he has these three influential state Republicans in his corner, but because his campaign has deep roots in South Carolina and always viewed it as Rubio’s best chance to score an early-state victory.
 
Every non-front-runner campaign plots a strategy that includes some element of, “and then we beat expectations in this state, and then BOOM! -- it gives us momentum and donations and we jump ahead of our rivals!” But Ted Cruz is doing about as well in South Carolina after winning Iowa as he was before. After John Kasich’s second-place finish in New Hampshire, a couple of polls showed him jumping up from the 9–10 percent range to the mid-teens in South Carolina . . . and he’s still in single digits just about everywhere else. He’s not betting much in the Palmetto State; he won’t be there on Election Night.
What if winning or coming in second in an early state doesn’t give you a sudden, dramatic boost of support in later states? If people in the March 1 SEC primary states don’t care if Iowans or New Hampshire voters liked you . . . what then?

Yesterday NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed both Cruz and Rubio beating Trump among Republicans head-to-head. The problem for both of them is that there’s no sign this is going to be a two-man race anytime soon. I suppose if Rubio did abominably badly in South Carolina, he might drop out.
A two-man race? Heck, we may not get a three-man race after South Carolina. Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, and John Kasich don’t sound like they’re ready to quit anytime soon.

Bush was sarcastic when he said yesterday: “It’s all been decided, apparently. The pundits have already figured it out. We don’t have to go vote. I should stop campaigning maybe.”

Yes, yes, those mean, awful pundits who can look at polling and see that Bush has never finished higher than a tie for third, with 15 percent in South Carolina since July. Not only are Bush, Kasich, and Carson not doing particularly well in South Carolina; you have to look far and wide to find a poll of any other state conducted in 2016 where they’re in double digits.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1063 on: February 22, 2016, 07:59:19 AM »
More questions than answers at this point.  On the Dem side, I think I just lost my second bet with ccp, Hillary just won the Dem nomination if she manages to stay out of prison long enough to pardon herself.

Trump is winning the Republican race.  He won NH and SC by double digits and leading in many others.  The other side of that coin is that he is confirming the high floor, low ceiling theory.  2/3rds of Republicans don't go to him even though he is clear and away the long-standing front runner.  

Cruz is also a plurality candidate judging from his record and talk.  He is aiming to capture the 20-25% of the GOP that is furthest to the right with no interest in the rest.  He is a smart guy, and conservatism is better than leftism, so we assume he could win  arguments with Hillary or whoever in a general election, but for the time being he has only aimed his campaign only at those who are already the most conservative.

Bush is out.  His meager support goes to Rubio or Kasich.  

Kasich is now 4th place by default.  He has an impressive background, in congress and being the last of the two term governors remaining (only because he refuses to get out).  He is the last of the 'compassionate conservatives'.  I think he lacks charisma, but maybe that is a good thing.  It will be interesting to see if he carries Ohio the way he did in his reelection.  Like Rubio in Florida, these things aren't always as easy as they look.

Ben Carson is staying in after finishing last.  Great guy.  He adds something to the race, but no one sees him as President.  

If Bush, Carson and Kasich were all out, we would have a better opportunity to judge the top three.  A divided race favors Trump, who can win with 32%.  Either Cruz or Rubio might beat Trump in a one on one, but that isn't going to happen.  Neither Cruz or Rubio is going to go down or get out from where they are now.

Then what?  Trump runs the table as it appears now?  Or Cruz wins the most conservative states, Kasich wins Ohio, Rubio wins a couple and this goes to the convention and all but one end up feeling cheated?

As Hillary emerges as the Dem nominee and her coverage starts to look like someone who can win, R's start to focus their vote on who can win the general election, not just who takes the hardest line on their own biggest issue?  

Maybe that is Rubio, but all the concerns about him are valid.  Is he too young, too scripted, too untested, too easily moved to compromise?  He has no executive experience.  Has he pissed off conservatives too much to every unite our side, turn them out and win?   Is it just no good this time around to be everyone's second choice?  The way I see it, his downside risk comes with the upside risk that his message of conservative inspiration could win and win big.

Or can one of the others start to look like a general election winner?

It's still hard to see where this is headed.  Did we really start with 17 great candidates and  are going to end up with one that can't or won't win against a totally flawed Dem in a year that should have Republican written all over it?  Or lose to a 3rd party or win in a negative or divided way that the Senate goes to the Dems?

A lot is going to happen in the next two weeks or so.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 02:19:04 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1064 on: February 22, 2016, 06:49:06 PM »
" I think I just lost my second bet with ccp, Hillary just won the Dem nomination if she manages to stay out of prison long enough to pardon herself."

Did you see the pick a card bet in Nevada in the one county that was tied.  Unlike in NH where the flip a coin (hillary won 6 of 6), in Nevada they pick one card from a deck and the one who ocks the highest card wins.

Of course, she picks an ace.

The whole process will be rigged for her till the finish line.  That includes her email problems.
And what is going on with her chairman Mao outfits?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1065 on: February 23, 2016, 04:23:06 PM »
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline sees only one scenario is left for the anyone-but-Trump nomination outcome and that is if Kasich underperforms in the 'Big Ten' primaries and gets out and either Cruz or Rubio underperforms the SEC primaries and gets out and the field is narrowed to two by March 15. 

In a 3-way where Trump is near 40%, either Rubio or Cruz has to consistently beat the other by a 2:1 margin to stay even with Trump.

None of this seems likely.

Kasich's best shot at VP is by helping Trump and Cruz and Rubio don't see each other as teammates except that each wishes the other would drop and support him.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/can-the-gop-be-reduced-in-time-to-two.php

My view: if they can drop to 3 candidates fast and if Trump falls to the low 30s like he got in SC, then the stronger of Cruz or Rubio could prevail.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1066 on: February 23, 2016, 11:24:52 PM »
At this point, I think Trump has the nomination. Hope I am wrong.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1067 on: February 24, 2016, 10:39:59 AM »
At this point, I think Trump has the nomination. Hope I am wrong.

The other-than-Trump candidates have from now, Wednesday, until about Thursday, tomorrow's debate, to pull heads out of asses and figure out how to counter this before it looks like a steamroller running over a domino board, assuming you and I are right that nominating Trump is a bad thing.

Kasich's plan to win is what? 

Carson's plan to win is what?

Cruz and Rubio have roughly an equal claim on 2nd place.  What could Rubio demand from Cruz in order to drop out?  What could Cruz demand from Rubio in order to drop out?

Latest national poll is Rasmussen:  2/21 - 2/22, Likely voters
Trump 36, Rubio 21, Cruz 17, Kasich 12, Carson 8.  Trump +15 (over Rubio)
Other polls less recent give 2nd place to Cruz. 

Kasich support goes more to Rubio; Carson support goes more to Cruz.  Using this poll, Rubio has the better path.  Rubio still has better general election numbers.  Trump and Cruz both plan to fight the general election fight later.  But how?

As it stands Trump will beat Rubio in Florida, Cruz in Texas and Kasich in Ohio.  Texas is the first of those.  Cruz has no path after that if he loses, can only point to Rubio having no path either.  Lose, lose, lose, because they are all caught up in ego instead of country and cause.

Rubio leads Clinton in MN, also leads Trump and Cruz.  Every hour on conservative radio Cruz(PAC) has an attack ad running against Rubio, not Trump.  Good grief.  Cruz' goal is to take second place in the second place party.  No other candidates are advertising here.

If Kasich and Carson drop out sooner rather than later, the race tightens.  If Cruz is going to lose Texas, why not make that dramatic move out sooner, tighten the race.  Again, but how?  Have all the R Senators supporting Rubio agree to support Cruz for majority (or minority) leader of the Senate next January?  From there he controls amnesty, O'care funding, spending, deficits, tax reform, etc.  (Cruz can't offer Rubio the same.  He doesn't have support from Senators and Rubio is out of the Senate in January.)

If Rubio got out in support of Cruz, what can Cruz assure back?  In my view, Cruz is still running to lock in the most conservative 17-25% of the more conservative party, not the general electorate.  Rubio jumping out suddenly doesn't set up a general election win for Cruz according to the preponderance of the polls; it only opens up the center for someone else to jump in.

It would be interesting to see (accurate) general election polling in all the contested states.  It's kind of irrelevant to see which R leads in Massachusetts, California or Texas.

Most likely we all just keep acting stupid.

This week I went to see Rubio, cheered a little for the cameras and helped fill the auditorium on 2 days notice, sent him (a very small amount of) money, and wrote an email to each of the others mentioned about doing the right thing and getting out.

That ought to do it...

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1068 on: February 24, 2016, 03:29:17 PM »
Having a hard time focusing on this, shrouding my badge again for another fallen officer as I get ready for my 4th 12 HR shift this week. I wonder how many White House representatives will be sent to the funeral. I'm sure the president will express his concern.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Newt
« Reply #1069 on: February 24, 2016, 05:35:11 PM »
The State of the Race After Nevada
Originally published at the Washington Times

Nevada has already sent a strong signal on the Democratic side.

Barring a major scandal (an indictment, for example) the odds are now good that Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat nominee.
Bernie Sanders had to win Nevada to sustain his momentum and the simple fact that he couldn't do it is a severe blow to his campaign.
Sanders had spent much more than Hillary on advertising in Nevada and despite his efforts and her weaknesses, she won by a significant margin (albeit one much narrower than anyone would have believed a year ago).

Sanders will have to dramatically sharpen his attacks on Hillary to get back into the race.

If he can't win the nomination, however, he may yet win the war of ideas within his own party. He is in this to the convention because he can raise money from small donors and he is the voice of those who want a socialist "revolution"( to use the word Sanders uses).

There are two big dangers in this for the Democrats.

First, Sanders is pulling Clinton further and further left. For example, to sustain her vast majority among African Americans, Clinton is using more and more radical language. None of that will be sustainable in a general election.

Second, Sanders is highlighting embarrassing weaknesses in the Clinton record. For example, the whole question of releasing her speech transcripts to Wall Street companies would not have come up without a Sanders candidacy.

For Clinton, the path is clear.

Deny every allegation, keep growing the Clinton machine based on past and future favors, shift far enough to the left and to radicalism to blur Sanders's appeal.

The Republican Race

After Nevada can we stipulate that Trump is the frontrunner?

As importantly, can we also acknowledge that the Trump-Cruz-Carson outsider vote is in the 62-70% range?

The old elites have to come to grips with the fact that their "mainstream" champion of last resort was in 2010 a Tea Party insurgent fighting the Washington establishment to win a Senate seat.

Marco Rubio is the most conservative candidate the political and donor classes have ever supported. He is also much more independent. (There is a sound reason so much of the old order donated to Jeb Bush and not to Marco Rubio.)

The anti-Trump advocates keep hoping that as the field narrows, all the votes will go to the anti-Trump candidate. There is no reason to believe that is true. With each candidate who drops out, Trump gains some of their support. If Cruz and Carson dropped out he would gain more of their supporters than Rubio would.

There is an additional challenge coming for Rubio: Can he beat Trump in Florida?

If Rubio loses Florida, he will lose any rationale for his candidacy.

Cruz seems better positioned to win Texas, a victory that would boost his overall delegate count.

Three Big Points

1. In every state we know about, the GOP turnout is up and the Democrat turnout is down. That is a bad sign for the Democrats.

2. The Republican old order still hasn't come to grips with the fact that two out of three of their own voters are repudiating them. This isn't about Trump the personality. It is about Trump, Cruz, Carson and the genuine grassroots revulsion against a political class that has failed to solve America's problems.

3. A Stop-Trump movement will be self-defeating because Trump isn't going away. When Andrew Jackson was blocked by the old-order from becoming president in 1824, he spent four years assailing them and creating the Jacksonian movement which transformed the Democratic Party. The idea that Trump could win almost everywhere (he is currently behind only in Utah and Texas--and even in Texas he’s close) and then be denied the nomination is hopeless. Either Trump will be stopped in the primaries or he will be the nominee.
Your Friend,
Newt



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
2016 Presidential, The Economist: Time to Fire Trump
« Reply #1072 on: February 26, 2016, 09:10:37 AM »
People need to either support Trump (or Hillary) or figure who is best positioned to beat Trump (and Hillary).  The Economist liked Kasich.  Others liked Cruz.  I liked Jack Kemp.  At some point we unite and move forward or remain divided and lose, lose, lose.
 - - - - - -
"If the field remains split as it is now, it is possible for Mr Trump to win with just a plurality of votes. To prevent that, others must drop out. Although we are yet to be convinced by Mr Rubio (see article), he stands a better chance of beating Mr Trump than anyone else. All the other candidates—including Mr Cruz, who wrongly sees himself as the likeliest challenger—should get out of his way. If they decline to do so, it could soon be too late to prevent the party of Abraham Lincoln from being led into a presidential election by Donald Trump."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Time to fire him
Donald Trump is unfit to lead a great political party   -  The Economist  Feb 27, 2016
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21693579-donald-trump-unfit-lead-great-political-party-time-fire-him

In a week’s time, the race for the Republican nomination could be all but over. Donald Trump has already won three of the first four contests. On March 1st, Super Tuesday, 12 more states will vote. Mr Trump has a polling lead in all but three of them. Were these polls to translate into results, as they have so far, Mr Trump would not quite be unbeatable. It would still be possible for another candidate to win enough delegates to overtake him. But that would require the front-runner to have a late, spectacular electoral collapse of a kind that has not been seen before. Right now the Republican nomination is his to lose.

Worse, it might not stop there. Polls show that 46% of Americans of voting age have a “very unfavourable” opinion of Mr Trump, which suggests his chances of winning a general election are slight. But Mr Trump’s political persona is more flexible than that of any professional politician, which means he can take it in any direction he wants to. And whoever wins the nomination for either party will have a decent chance of becoming America’s next president: the past few elections have been decided by slim margins in a handful of states. When pollsters ask voters to choose in a face-off between Mr Trump and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner wins by less than three percentage points. Mr Trump would have plenty of time to try to close that gap. An economy that falls back into recession or an indictment for Mrs Clinton might do it for him.

In this section
Time to fire him

Donald Trump

That is an appalling prospect. The things Mr Trump has said in this campaign make him unworthy of leading one of the world’s great political parties, let alone America. One way to judge politicians is by whether they appeal to our better natures: Mr Trump has prospered by inciting hatred and violence. He is so unpredictable that the thought of him anywhere near high office is terrifying. He must be stopped.

The world according to Trump

Because each additional Trumpism seems a bit less shocking than the one before, there is a danger of becoming desensitised to his outbursts. To recap, he has referred to Mexicans crossing the border as rapists; called enthusiastically for the use of torture; hinted that Antonin Scalia, a Supreme Court justice, was murdered; proposed banning all Muslims from visiting America; advocated killing the families of terrorists; and repeated, approvingly, a damaging fiction that a century ago American soldiers in the Philippines dipped their ammunition in pigs’ blood before executing Muslim rebels. At a recent rally he said he would like to punch a protester in the face. This is by no means an exhaustive list.

Almost the only policy Mr Trump clearly subscribes to is a fantasy: the construction of a wall along the southern border, paid for by Mexico. What would he do if faced with a crisis in the South China Sea, a terrorist attack in America or another financial meltdown? Nobody has any idea. Mr Trump may be well suited to campaigning in primaries, where voters bear little resemblance to the country as a whole, but it is difficult to imagine any candidate less suited to the consequence of winning a general election, namely governing.

With each victory, the voices trying to make peace with Mr Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party grow louder. He has already been endorsed by some Republican congressmen. Some on the left point out that he is less conservative on social and economic questions than some of his rivals (while privately hoping the Republicans nominate him so that Mrs Clinton can give him a shellacking). Some on the right argue that Mr Trump is merely playing a role, blowing chilli powder up the nostrils of the politically correct, and that in essence he is a pragmatic New York property developer who likes to cut deals. Were he to win the nomination, their argument runs, he would be privately intimidated and would appoint sensible advisers to whom he would defer.

This is wishful thinking by those who want their side to win at any cost. There is nothing in Mr Trump’s career—during which he has maintained close control of the family business he runs, and often acted on instinct—to suggest that he would suddenly metamorphose into a wise chairman, eager to take counsel from seasoned experts. For those who have yet to notice, Mr Trump is not burdened by a lack of confidence in his own opinions.

Republican in name only

For too long, the first instinct of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, the leading alternatives to Mr Trump, has been to avoid criticising the front-runner in the hope of winning over his voters later. The primaries may at times resemble a circus, but they also provide a place to test candidates for leadership and courage. So far both men have flunked that test. Republicans need to take Mr Trump on, not stand transfixed by what is happening to their party. More than 60m people voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. A big majority are decent, compassionate, tolerant people who abhor political violence, bigotry and lying. Thoughtful conservatives will be heart-broken if asked to choose in November between a snarling nativist and a Democrat.

If The Economist had cast a vote in the Republican primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada we would have supported John Kasich. The governor of Ohio has a good mixture of experience, in Congress and in his home state as well as in the private sector. He has also shown bravery, expanding Medicaid in Ohio though he knew it would count against him later with primary voters, as indeed it has. But this is not Mr Kasich’s party any more. Despite his success in New Hampshire, where he came second, Mr Kasich is the preferred choice of less than 10% of Republican voters.

If the field remains split as it is now, it is possible for Mr Trump to win with just a plurality of votes. To prevent that, others must drop out. Although we are yet to be convinced by Mr Rubio (see article), he stands a better chance of beating Mr Trump than anyone else. All the other candidates—including Mr Cruz, who wrongly sees himself as the likeliest challenger—should get out of his way. If they decline to do so, it could soon be too late to prevent the party of Abraham Lincoln from being led into a presidential election by Donald Trump.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 09:15:53 AM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1073 on: February 26, 2016, 09:22:57 AM »
I mostly agree with the Economist.  That said I used to subscribe to it and I can tell you nearly always they lean left.  They are liberal in most ways.

I would feel better if they come out and also say Hillary is totally unfit to lead the free world because she is corrupt. a Federal law breaker, probably a bribe taker and a habitual untrustworthy liar.

When they do this I will give more credit to them.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1074 on: February 26, 2016, 09:40:06 AM »
ccp,  I agree.  I only like them when they agree with me. )  I also used to subscribe.  They had nice coverage and insights from events around the globe before we had internet and Stratfor and so many other sources.  Their opinions are intended as centrist but too liberal for me.  I canceled my subscription one day when they were debating the details of what should go into Hillarycare without considering the possibility of rejecting it outright.  I will read the enemy view but not support it financially.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Dick Morris on why Rubio cannot win
« Reply #1076 on: March 01, 2016, 05:18:33 AM »
but does he think Trump could win the general?

http://www.dickmorris.com/why-rubio-cant-win/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Dick Morris on why Rubio cannot win
« Reply #1077 on: March 01, 2016, 09:50:41 AM »
but does he think Trump could win the general?

http://www.dickmorris.com/why-rubio-cant-win/

Dick Morris is partly right and partly wrong.  One thing he misses is the value of the endorsement.  If Carson supporters still have loyalty to Carson after he withdraws and he endorses Rubio and actively campaigns with him, that makes at least a small difference.  Even more so for Cruz. If he got out, he would become Rubio's biggest supporter very quickly and maybe even take down the anti-Rubio ads!  Kasich's support goes more to Rubio in the first place.  The bigger problem is that none of them show any indication that are getting out.

I will be at my caucus tonight.  Who else here gets to vote today?

Three candidates need to get out tonight when the polls close and caucuses adjourn.  I'm hoping one of them will be Trump!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1078 on: March 01, 2016, 10:28:26 AM »
Trump - he seems dead set to not even try to reverse his negatives.

He could be the most reviled man to run for President. 

I would vote for him over any Democrat candidate but otherwise I will be holding my nose.  He has lost me.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
POTH: Hillary's strategy
« Reply #1080 on: March 01, 2016, 08:56:16 PM »
Join us for live updates and analysis of Super Tuesday.
From Our Advertisers

_____

In the days after Donald J. Trump vanquished his Republican rivals in South Carolina and Nevada, prominent Democrats supporting Hillary Clinton arranged a series of meetings and conference calls to tackle a question many never thought they would ask: How do we defeat Mr. Trump in a general election?

Several Democrats argued that Mrs. Clinton, should she be her party’s nominee, would easily beat Mr. Trump. They were confident that his incendiary remarks about immigrants, women and Muslims would make him unacceptable to many Americans. They had faith that the growing electoral power of black, Hispanic and female voters would deliver a Clinton landslide if he were the Republican nominee.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

    Super Tuesday: What to Watch ForMARCH 1, 2016
    Even as He Rises, Donald Trump Entertains Conspiracy TheoriesFEB. 29, 2016
    Last Batch of Hillary Clinton’s Emails Is ReleasedFEB. 29, 2016
    Donald Trump Finds Ally in Delegate Selection System, Much to G.O.P.’s ChagrinFEB. 29, 2016
    Donald Trump’s Message Resonates With White SupremacistsFEB. 29, 2016
    Inside the Republican Party’s Desperate Mission to Stop Donald TrumpFEB. 27, 2016

But others, including former President Bill Clinton, dismissed those conclusions as denial. They said that Mr. Trump clearly had a keen sense of the electorate’s mood and that only a concerted campaign portraying him as dangerous and bigoted would win what both Clintons believe will be a close November election.

That strategy is beginning to take shape, with groups that support Mrs. Clinton preparing to script and test ads that would portray Mr. Trump as a misogynist and an enemy to the working class whose brash temper would put the nation and the world in grave danger. The plan is for those themes to be amplified later by two prominent surrogates: To fight Mr. Trump’s ability to sway the news cycle, Mr. Clinton would not hold back on the stump, and President Obama has told allies he would gleefully portray Mr. Trump as incapable of handling the duties of the Oval Office.

Democrats say they risk losing the presidency if they fail to take Mr. Trump seriously, much as Republicans have done in the primary campaign.

“He’s formidable, he understands voters’ anxieties, and he will be ruthless against Hillary Clinton,” said Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut. “I’ve gone from denial — ‘I can’t believe anyone would listen to this guy’ — to admiration, in the sense that he’s figured out how to capture everyone’s angst, to real worry.”

During the first Republican debate last summer, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, shushed a room full of people at the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters when Mr. Trump started to speak, almost giddily captivated by the wildness of his remarks. “Shh, I’ve got to get me some Trump,” he said.

Now, Mr. Mook and his colleagues regard Mr. Trump as a wily, determined and indefatigable opponent who seems to be speaking to broad economic anxieties among Americans and to the widely held belief that traditional politicians are incapable of addressing those problems. Publicly, the Clinton operation is letting the Republicans slug it out. But privately, it and other Democrats are poring over polling data to understand the roots of Mr. Trump’s populist appeal and building up troves of opposition research on his business career.

“The case against Trump will be prosecuted on two levels,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster and Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist in 2008. “The first is temperament,” and whether he is suited to be commander in chief, Mr. Garin said, echoing conversations that have dominated Democratic circles recently. The second “will be based on whether he can really be relied on as a champion for anyone but himself.”

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

But the tactics the Clintons have used for years to take down opponents may fall short in a contest between the blunt and unpredictable Mr. Trump and the cautious and scripted Mrs. Clinton: a matchup that operatives on both sides predicted would be an epic, ugly clash between two vastly disparate politicians.

“Hillary has built a large tanker ship, and she’s about to confront Somali pirates,” said Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for former President George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign, who is now an independent.

This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen advisers, strategists and close allies of the Clintons, including several who have spoken directly with Mr. Clinton. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss strategy publicly.
Continue reading the main story
Election 2016
Super Tuesday: Live Updates

Join us live as we cover voting on Super Tuesday.

Great Reads
Our best deeply reported and engaging works.

    A Conversation With Latinos on Race
    FEB 29
    Obama’s Tangled History With Supreme Court Sets Stage for Nominee Fight
    FEB 28
    A New Libya, With ‘Very Little Time Left’
    FEB 27
    Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall
    FEB 27
    What It’s Really Like to Risk It All in Silicon Valley
    FEB 27

See More »
‘Against Bigotry’

The greatest weapon against Mr. Trump, the Clintons believe, is his tendency to make outrageous, even hateful comments that can come across as unpresidential. During the most recent Republican debate on Thursday, Mr. Trump traded schoolyard taunts with his rivals and threatened to build an even bigger wall on the Mexican border because he did not like a rebuke of his original wall proposal by a former president of Mexico.

In South Carolina and Tennessee, Mrs. Clinton began to lay the groundwork for what advisers call “a campaign against bigotry,” in which she will present herself as the fair-minded foil to Mr. Trump. She declared that Americans needed more “love and kindness.”

“Instead of building walls,” she has started to say, “we need to be tearing down barriers.”

During the Republican debate on Thursday, the Clinton campaign posted an image on Instagram that said, “These are not American values: Racism, sexism, bigotry, discrimination, inequality.”

Mr. Trump emphatically denies being bigoted, saying he is simply not “politically correct.” But he has already signaled that he would be vicious against Mrs. Clinton. He said that she should be indicted for her use of a private email server as secretary of state and that Mr. Clinton’s extramarital affairs were “fair game” in the election because they were an “abuse of women.”
An All-Out Assault

While Mrs. Clinton radiates positive energy on the trail, Democratic groups are beginning to coalesce around a strategy to deliver sustained and brutal attacks on Mr. Trump.

The plan has three major thrusts: Portray Mr. Trump as a heartless businessman who has worked against the interests of the working-class voters he now appeals to; broadcast the degrading comments he has made against women in order to sway suburban women, who have been reluctant to support Mrs. Clinton; and highlight his brash, explosive temper to show he is unsuited to be commander in chief.

American Bridge, a pro-Clinton “super PAC,” has formed a “due diligence unit” of tax and business experts who are poring over Securities and Exchange Commission documents and court records related to Mr. Trump’s business career.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

A staff member for an affiliated group, Correct the Record, which coordinates with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, has collected footage of comments that have not hurt Mr. Trump’s standing among Republican primary voters, but that could be stitched together in what the group’s founder, David Brock, described as a montage of hateful speech that would appall a general electorate.

“There is something to this idea that nothing has stuck,” Mr. Brock said, but that, he argued, is because the Republicans have been too restrained to avoid offending Mr. Trump’s supporters.

In the coming weeks, Priorities USA Action, a super PAC supporting Mrs. Clinton that effectively portrayed Mitt Romney as a cold corporate titan in the 2012 campaign, will begin scripting and testing ads that use a similar approach against Mr. Trump.

As Mrs. Clinton tries to remain above the fray, Mr. Clinton would be unleashed to respond when Mr. Trump lashed out. Mr. Obama has already argued that Mr. Trump should not be trusted with the job and has told allies he will continue that charge. In February, asked about Mr. Trump, he said the president has “the nuclear codes with them and can order 21-year-olds into a firefight.”

Jennifer Palmieri, a Clinton spokeswoman, said that she was focused on the primary, but that “she was the first person to call Trump out on either side, and we reserve the right to do that depending on the circumstances.”

Even as Democrats prepare to take on Mr. Trump, there remains deep anxiety that the messages may not break through.

In January, Clinton advisers were startled after Senator Ted Cruz of Texas released an ad that alleged that Mr. Trump had used eminent domain to try to bulldoze an elderly widow’s home in Atlantic City, making way for a parking lot to accompany one of his namesake casinos.

The woman won the legal battle and remained in her home, but the ad, which Mr. Trump disputed, did not dent his support.
Photo
Donald J. Trump sighed backstage after a difficult rally at Radford University in Virginia, at which he was interrupted repeatedly by protesters. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times
A Shifting Map

Unless these attacks are effective, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers worry that Mr. Trump could pose a threat in some states Mr. Obama won in 2008 and 2012, including some the party once considered safe.

Mrs. Clinton’s uneven performance with male voters so far, especially white men, could create an opening for Mr. Trump to attract Democrats and independents who are socially and culturally moderate and open to his call for a strong military, fearless foreign policy and businessman’s approach to the economy. Those voters could give him an edge in places like North Carolina, which Mr. Obama won in 2008. But Clinton advisers also worry about Ohio, Florida and Democratic-leaning states in presidential elections that Mr. Trump has vowed to contest, like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Edward G. Rendell, a former governor of Pennsylvania who is supporting Mrs. Clinton, said that he thought she would ultimately win Pennsylvania, but conceded that he could be wrong. “He has crossover appeal with some blue-collar working-class Democrats,” Mr. Rendell said. The key to defeating Mr. Trump, he said, was to keep coaxing him into making offensive or extreme comments that would alienate independents and others who might normally vote for a Republican nominee.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

“For every one of those blue-collar Democrats he picks up, he will lose to Hillary two socially moderate Republicans and independents in suburban Cleveland, suburban Columbus, suburban Cincinnati, suburban Philadelphia, suburban Pittsburgh, places like that,” he said.

Former Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina, who campaigned there on Thursday with Mr. Clinton, said the former president was girding for a hard-fought election if Mr. Trump is the Republican nominee. “The president sees Trump as formidable, no question,” Mr. Hodges said. “He takes him seriously. The campaign takes him seriously.”
Fueling the Outrage Machine

“They’ll flip their top, and they’ll flip their panties...” read the subject line of a recent news release from Emily’s List, a group that works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights. The quote came from comments Mr. Trump made about women on “The Howard Stern Show” in the 1990s, unearthed by BuzzFeed last month.

Those types of comments, spoken by Mr. Trump over the years as he served as a tabloid regular and reality TV star, could help Mrs. Clinton excite suburban women and young women who have been ambivalent or antagonistic toward her candidacy.

Stephanie Schriock, the president of Emily’s List, said that an expanded research shop at the organization had compiled “an endless amount of misogynistic and outrageous comments towards women.”

The strategy highlights a concern among Mrs. Clinton’s allies that her chance to become the first female president has not led to widespread excitement among young women. Mr. Trump is the perfect solution to the enthusiasm gap, many Democrats say.

They also say that, while Mr. Trump has proved adept at emasculating his male opponents, as with his “low energy” slight at Jeb Bush, his insults directed at Carly Fiorina and the Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly have fallen flat or backfired. Ms. Fiorina had the best week of her short-lived campaign after Mr. Trump insulted her face and she rallied women around her candidacy.

And Mrs. Clinton has benefited in her career when male opponents have overstepped or appeared to bully her.
A Clash of Styles

But as Democrats hold their breath for the next sexist comment, they also acknowledge a problem that opposition research cannot fix: Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton are polar opposite politicians, and Mr. Trump’s direct and visceral style could prove difficult for Mrs. Clinton, whose inclination is detailed policy talk and 12-point plans.

“Can you imagine what he’ll do?” Mr. Dowd, the former Bush strategist, said. She will bring up equal pay for women and abortion rights, Mr. Dowd said, “and he’ll turn to her and say, ‘You can’t even handle your stuff at home.’ ”

Mr. Clinton calls Mr. Trump ideal in the era of the “Instagram election,” when voters want bite-size solutions (“Build a wall!” “Ban the Muslims!”) to complex problems. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, can appear scripted and static when she tries to hurl planned one-liners in debates.

It will be hard for Mrs. Clinton to focus on policy and stay above the fray as her opponent and her own operation dig in for a brutish campaign. “Hope and change, not so much,” said David Plouffe, who managed Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, referring to the slogan that defined that race. “More like hate and castrate.”

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1081 on: March 01, 2016, 09:37:19 PM »
Super Tuesday is behind us.  Largest (Republican) caucus turnout ever in our small town.  Democrat turnout continues to be down.  Trump rolls in several states.  Cruz beat him in TX and OK.  Rubio ran a strong second in swing state VA. 

Metaphor alert, Hugh Hewitt says Hurricane Trump has been downgraded from a Category 5 to a Category 3 as it hit land.

Rubio wins Minnesota.

This changes everything.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Geraghty
« Reply #1082 on: March 02, 2016, 07:49:06 AM »
Trump continues to score about 35% net of the votes.  Very good victory press conference last night.  Debate tomorrow night should be HUGE!

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

Stupor Tuesday

Super Tuesday was a bad night for the anti-Trump forces and a bad night for Rubio. It’s not the end, but it’s a disappointing setback.

The worst news for Trump foes: Trump has won ten states. Cruz has won four; Rubio, one.

The best news for Trump foes: For all of his state wins, Donald Trump has 34.2 percent of the overall votes cast in the primary so far. Cruz and Rubio combined have 49.7 percent.

In the past week, Trump’s rivals and a critical press have spotlighted the collapse and victims of Trump University, his past use of illegal immigrants on Trump Tower, his massive use of legal-immigrant temporary workers in his Florida resorts, the collapse of Trump Mortgage, his strange reluctance to passionately denounce David Duke and the KKK, and the fact that only $650,000 of the $6 million Trump raised for veterans can be accounted for. To top it off, they made fun of his orange spray tan and short fingers.

And Trump won seven out of eleven states Tuesday. He underperformed his polls in some states, but in far too many places, GOP primary voters either didn’t hear the criticism or didn’t care. “Give us the con artist! He makes the offer sound really good! We’ll sign on the dotted line, no need to read the fine print!”

Now the thinking is that the best way to beat Trump might not be for the field to narrow to a two-man race. Maybe if Cruz or Rubio and John Kasich quit, not enough of their supporters will unite behind the remaining non-Trump option. Some might prefer Trump. Some might stay home. Maybe the most likely way to keep Donald Trump from winning the 1,237 delegates needed for the convention is to keep everybody in, and fight it out at the convention, probably resulting in a Cruz-Rubio or Rubio-Cruz unity ticket.

I don’t know who on the Rubio team made this comment to Bloomberg . . .

But in the final hours before polls close on Super Tuesday -- the single biggest day of voting in the Republican primary -- Rubio’s team is telling potential supporters that they have significant momentum in at least four states and could even win outright in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Virginia and Minnesota.
. . . but it was disastrous expectations-setting. In Arkansas, Rubio finished third with 25 percent. In Oklahoma, Rubio finished third with 26 percent. In Virginia, he was second with just under 32 percent (2.8 percentage points behind Trump). In Minnesota, he won with 36.8 percent.

At least with the Minnesota win, the “when is Rubio going to win a state” line will retire. And Kasich’s campaign spin is insufferable:

Senator Rubio has been more hyped than Crystal Pepsi, but he has flopped even worse. Even a well-conceived, high-financed marketing campaign won’t work if people don’t want to buy the product. That’s the Rubio campaign’s problem. Behind the nice packaging, voters are discovering there is little substance. A candidate isn’t going to out-talk Donald Trump to the nomination. It’s going to take a candidate who has produced results. Only John Kasich can consolidate the Republican Party and win in November.

Governor Kasich, let’s put aside the fact that you haven’t won a state. You’ve won 6.6 percent of the vote in the primary. You finished in fourth place in a five-man race in Texas and Virginia. You finished in fifth place in a five-man race in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Minnesota, Oklahoma and Tennessee.
Ben Carson Will Campaign and Ask for Money Forever

Don’t worry, America. No matter how badly Ben Carson does, he will continue to ask people for money. Shortly after the polls closed on Super Tuesday, Carson addressed a crowd of several hundred supporters gathered at The Grand in his hometown of Baltimore, Maryland.

“I am not moved or discouraged when the political class count me out,” said Dr. Carson. “When I began my campaign more than a year ago, there were 17 viable candidates seeking the GOP nomination. Today, because “We the People” continue to show unprecedented support, I remain one of five. Millions of Americans plead with me to continue. They want to have a choice and a representative voice to ensure people of faith are not marginalized and that integrity is restored to leadership, with a focus on common sense solutions to the myriad problems we face as a nation. They know I am a citizen candidate, not a politician, who won’t do what is expedient, but what is right.  As long we continue to receive their support, and the Lord keeps opening doors, I will remain in this presidential race. The stakes are too high to willingly hand our country over once again to the pundits and the political class.”

At this point, it’s not “the pundits and the political class” that are rejecting Carson. It’s Republican primary voters. He’s gotten 6 percent of the overall vote so far. He hit 10 percent in just two of the 15 contests. He’s spent $53 million.  Last night, there were 632 delegates at stake. Ben Carson won 3 of them.
At least his old friend Armstrong Williams is standing . . . oh: “It’s not about a pathway to him. There is no pathway.”

It’s not just that Carson is losing; it’s that his behavior and arguments are starting to get more odd. This was his big announcement on Super Tuesday:
Concerned with the lack of civility currently being displayed in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, Dr. Ben Carson is personally calling for a private meeting of all of the candidates in Detroit, Michigan before the FOX News GOP debate scheduled this Thursday, March 3, 2016.  And just think, yesterday’s Jolt featured John Kerry imploring Assad’s regime in Syria to “show some decency.”  In November, Donald Trump argued Carson had a “pathology” and compared him to a child molester. But now Carson is concerned about a lack of civility?

Governor Shine-box

You could see it in Chris Christie’s sad eyes last night as he awkwardly, silently stood behind Donald Trump during the entire press conference: The belated recognition that he was, in the best case scenario, setting himself up to hold Donald’s coat for four to eight years.

Alexandra Petri:

Chris Christie spent the entire speech screaming wordlessly. I have never seen someone scream so loudly without using his mouth before. It would have been remarkable if it had not been so terrifying.

Sometimes, at night, do you still hear them, Clarice? The screaming of the Christies?

His were the eyes of a man who has gazed into the abyss, and the abyss gazed back, and then he endorsed the abyss.
 
Ron Fournier: “He looked resigned last night, resigned to a life of carrying Trump’s spray tan and hair spray.”

Some New Jersey voices want a different kind of resignation:

The six newspapers including the Asbury Park Press, the Cherry Hill Courier-Post and the Morristown Daily Record -- all Gannett-owned papers that are part of the USA TODAY NETWORK -- were apparently spurred to editorial outrage by a Monday press conference in which Christie refused to answer questions about anything other than his nomination of a state Supreme Court judge. Asked why, Christie replied, “Because I don’t want to.”

“We’re fed up with Gov. Chris Christie’s arrogance,” the papers wrote. “We’re fed up with his opportunism. We’re fed up with his hypocrisy.”

The joint editorial notes that Christie spent part of 261 days out of state last year and traveled out of state to endorse Trump and campaign with him after he quit the race Feb. 10.

“For the good of the state, it’s time for Christie to do his long-neglected constituents a favor and resign as governor. If he refuses, citizens should initiate a recall effort,” the editorial said.

If Christie doesn’t want to be governor anymore, he should step aside. Few moments of this cycle have been as nauseating as last Friday, when Chris Christie, technically the sitting governor of New Jersey, who spent about 100 days in his home state in 2015, went to Texas for the Trump rally and attacked Marco Rubio as a “no-show senator.” Apparently Christie is so blinded by ambition, so spectacularly un-self-aware, that he saw no irony or hypocrisy there.

The “shine-box” reference is from the movie Goodfellas, when one mobster keeps mocking another by reminding him he used to shine shoes. (Scene here, language warning.) The insinuation is that no matter how big a guy tries to act, he’s still the same inferior subservient figure to greater men -- and the dismissive “Go home and get your shinebox” does sound a little like Trump’s “get on the plane and go home. It’s over there. You go home,” order to Christie.

If that reference is a little off-color for your tastes, this one came to mind last night .

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1083 on: March 02, 2016, 07:56:41 AM »
Yes it is no less then astonishing to see Christie standing behind Trump last night.

This soap opera never seems to disappoint with all the twists and turns.

"As the Primaries Turn" could be a good tile.  Better than any movie.  God I only hope the ending is a good and happy one (at least for our side and for the country).

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1084 on: March 02, 2016, 09:12:32 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1085 on: March 02, 2016, 09:40:00 AM »
Cruz and Rubio combined won more delegates than Trump.  Outside of Texas, Rubio won more votes in the South than Cruz, taking second in Georgia and Virginia. 

The dynamic of this race needs to change.

Rubio and Kasich have the best general election matchups.  Latest from RCP:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
                                                 Clinton (D)Trump (R)Spread
RCP Average   2/10 - 2/27   --   --   46.5   43.5   Clinton +3.0
CNN/ORC   2/24 - 2/27   920 RV   3.0   52   44   Clinton +8
FOX News   2/15 - 2/17   1031 RV   3.0   47   42   Clinton +5
USA Today/Suffolk   2/11 - 2/15   1000 LV   3.0   43   45   Trump +2
Quinnipiac   2/10 - 2/15   1342 RV   2.7   44   43   Clinton +1


General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton
                                                 Cruz (R)Clinton (D)Spread
RCP Average   2/10 - 2/27   --   --   46.5   45.0   Cruz +1.5
CNN/ORC   2/24 - 2/27   920 RV   3.0   49   48   Cruz +1
FOX News   2/15 - 2/17   1031 RV   3.0   46   45   Cruz +1
Quinnipiac   2/10 - 2/15   1342 RV   2.7   46   43   Cruz +3
USA Today/Suffolk   2/11 - 2/15   1000 LV   3.0   45   44   Cruz +1

General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton
                                                 Rubio (R)Clinton (D)Spread
RCP Average   2/10 - 2/27   --   --   48.5   43.5   Rubio +5.0
CNN/ORC   2/24 - 2/27   920 RV   3.0   50   47   Rubio +3
FOX News   2/15 - 2/17   1031 RV   3.0   48   44   Rubio +4
Quinnipiac   2/10 - 2/15   1342 RV   2.7   48   41   Rubio +7
USA Today/Suffolk   2/11 - 2/15   1000 LV   3.0   48   42   Rubio +6

General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton
                                                Kasich (R)Clinton (D)Spread
RCP Average   2/10 - 2/17   --   --   47.7   40.3   Kasich +7.4
FOX News   2/15 - 2/17   1031 RV   3.0   47   44   Kasich +3
Quinnipiac   2/10 - 2/15   1342 RV   2.7   47   39   Kasich +8
USA Today/Suffolk   2/11 - 2/15   1000 LV   3.0   49   38   Kasich +11

General Election: Trump vs. Sanders
                                                 Sanders (D)Trump (R)Spread
RCP Average   2/10 - 2/27   --   --   49.8   41.8   Sanders +8.0
CNN/ORC   2/24 - 2/27   920 RV   3.0   55   43   Sanders +12
FOX News   2/15 - 2/17   1031 RV   3.0   53   38   Sanders +15
Quinnipiac   2/10 - 2/15   1342 RV   2.7   48   42   Sanders +6
USA Today/Suffolk   2/11 - 2/15   1000 LV   3.0   43   44   Trump +1
All General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Polling Data

General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders
                                                Sanders (D)Cruz (R)Spread
RCP Average   2/10 - 2/27   --   --   50.0   40.3   Sanders +9.7
CNN/ORC   2/24 - 2/27   920 RV   3.0   57   40   Sanders +17
Quinnipiac   2/10 - 2/15   1342 RV   2.7   49   39   Sanders +10
USA Today/Suffolk   2/11 - 2/15   1000 LV   3.0   44   42   Sanders +2

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1086 on: March 02, 2016, 10:44:00 AM »
Doug,
since you are more closely involved then me what would you say that Trump will have to do to reverse this gap?

I really don't believe his changing the consideration for temporarily banning Muslims is truly the key.  That is just a leftist tool.  I don't really think the goal of dealing firmly with illegals is the key.

Perhaps if he stops the vulgarity?  What do you think?

More conservatism?

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1087 on: March 03, 2016, 09:48:32 AM »
Doug,
since you are more closely involved then me what would you say that Trump will have to do to reverse this gap?

I really don't believe his changing the consideration for temporarily banning Muslims is truly the key.  That is just a leftist tool.  I don't really think the goal of dealing firmly with illegals is the key.

Perhaps if he stops the vulgarity?  What do you think?

More conservatism?

ccp,  This new health care plan is an example of how he can improve the campaign and so was his tax plan, which he also hasn't read or pushed.  He couldn't go into one more debate not having a clue and siding with Sanders on healthcare.  He promised to quit swearing.  He acted Presidential, they say, in his press conference Tuesday.  All of that said, I don't think he can quit being himself, and if he did he would just be a regular politician.  You also don't get another try at a first impression.  Theone he has made now is lasting.

He can 'clarify' his Muslim comment and follow with a more detailed proposal, like with healthcare.  He said, paraphrasing, ...until the Obama administration knows what is going on and who is coming in.

Trump has crossover appeal, but that is already built in to his numbers.  His support is roughly 33% of the Republican vote, with 2/3rds preferring someone else.  His overall disapproval is over 60%, a record for a winning politician.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/187607/donald-trump-known-not-liked.aspx  91% are familiar with him and 32% approve.

To me it isn't how Trump can close his general election losing gap, it is this: why are Republican voters choosing the candidate most likely to lose - the White House AND the Senate?

To beat Trump his opponents need to drive his support down from 33% to about 29%, that is, break off one out of ten remaining Trump supporters.  Closed primaries and the fact that after Kentucky and Louisiana he is starting to run out of southern states will help with that. 

Also, the rest of the remaining field to get its act together!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Morris: Clinton v. Trump not inevitable
« Reply #1088 on: March 03, 2016, 12:26:12 PM »
Trump And Clinton Are Not Inevitable
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on March 3, 2016
Amid the celebrations of the successful Dunkirk evacuation of World War II, saving most of the British and much of the French Army, Prime Minister Winston Churchill cooled the festivities by saying: "This is not the end. This is not the beginning of the end. This is, however, the end of the beginning."

Super Tuesday isn't even the end of the beginning. It is the beginning of the end of the beginning. The beginning will end when Rubio and Kasich drop out of the Republican field and the FBI reports the outcome of its investigation of the Democratic candidate.

Once the GOP field is reduced to two, the process will unfold in the months ahead. It may not be fully resolved until June 6 when California (proportional) and New Jersey (winner-take-all) vote. And we will have no real measure of Bernie Sanders' strength until the FBI sings.

Rubio denies that he is dropping out, but death comes slowly to the political candidate. First rigor mortise sets in around his wallet and the money dries up. Then the polling goes to hell and, finally, he loses his home state. Measure Rubio's life expectancy as two weeks. Same with Kasich.

And, with Ben Carson out of the race, his evangelical votes will likely go to Cruz.

Once it is Trump vs. Cruz, we start the real battle. In this era of precision-guided munitions, if they can see you, they will kill you. The only way to win is to advance in stealth, usually in the shadow of your opponent. But Trump is very far from stealth. He is a big brassy band, noisily making his way to the front-runner's circle.

Now, every business deal, every laid-off worker, every stiffed contractor, every disgruntled or evicted tenant, every defrauded student, every disappointed business partner is going to be heard from week after week, month after month. Nobody will pay the slightest attention to Cruz. He can't win, after all. And, gradually, he will start winning primary after primary as the Trump brand is -- rightly or wrongly -- besmirched.

Can Trump evade the precision-guided missiles that will come his way? Can he dodge the bullets? Will they bounce off?

And can Trump begin to get 50 percent plus one of the vote any place? Every place?

We don't know. He is nothing if not sui generous. But the challenge is coming. Don't bet on the end yet.

On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders proved on Super Tuesday that Hillary can't win any state that does not have a significant black population. Colorado, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Minnesota have little in common except their color: pure lily white.

Sanders will carry the white states. On March 5th, look for him to do well in Kansas and Maine (but not Louisiana or Kentucky). He'll lose Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina on March 15.

But then he will win Oregon, Washington, Montana, Utah, and the prairie states. These victories will keep him alive and in play. His losing proportion of the vote in the big states will keep him close.

Then we will see the results of the FBI primary. Just as Yogi so eloquently said, "It ain't over till it's over," this one is not over until the FBI is heard from.

As long as Sanders is in the race, there is a receptacle for anti-Hillary votes. And with a coming recommendation of an indictment highly possible, that receptacle can fill up pretty quickly.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: Morris: Clinton v. Trump not inevitable
« Reply #1089 on: March 03, 2016, 12:47:57 PM »
[After it's down to Trump and Cruz] "Nobody will pay the slightest attention to Cruz. He can't win, after all. And, gradually, he will start winning primary after primary as the Trump brand is -- rightly or wrongly -- besmirched.

If Trump brand is going to fall, why not sooner rather than later?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1091 on: March 03, 2016, 02:49:52 PM »
great idea  :-D


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
2016 Presidential - GOP Debate #11
« Reply #1092 on: March 04, 2016, 10:09:23 AM »
I listened only on the radio so I missed some of the fighting where they talk over each other.  I have a bias and not undecided so what I think of each isn't crucial anymore.  The media highlights are the fights and the vulgarity, not the substance.  

The feedback I heard from people less political is that this level of 'discussion' is embarrassing and un-Presidential.

What should have happened in the primary process was 17 pretty strong candidates auditioning to see who can best articulate what has gone wrong over the Obama years (and before that) and who is in the best position to fix it with the best proposals to put us back on the right course.  The large field and the large number of debates should have served to expose the failures of the current regime to the point where all but the most hardcore leftists can see failure.  

And then along came Trump, and now the result of this process is that Republicans are in total disarray, mostly off-topic, perceived totally off-topic, while Obama's approval/disapproval rating has actually improved over the process.  We are picking the candidate to represent us who polls worst of the whole field against the opposition.  He is a caricature of what opponents think is all wrong about Republicans and his belief in conservative principles less than skin deep.

Contenders like Cruz, Rubio and others tried to defeat Trump on substance throughout this process, made no headway and ran out of time.  So Rubio in particular tried to attack him back in kind.  That makes Rubio look desperate and no better than the vulgar one.

Instead of seeing the failure of the Obama Presidency, we just see the failure of this process that is promising to get worse.

Meanwhile, Obama and Hillary elevate as people tune out the Republican side show.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2016, 11:37:21 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1093 on: March 04, 2016, 04:17:31 PM »
Moved here by request.
"Paul Ryan isn't going to be the President"

That is right.  So why is there a pac trying to rally him to run?

These last minute desperation moves by establishment types is not helping ( and I don't want to hear these very same people suggest there is no "establishment" - they know who and what we mean)

I can only conclude that the people behind these pacs are con artists taking money from people who have money.

None of this helps the right.

Who knows.  What I would not rule out in this bizarre election year is that if Trump and Hillary are the nominees and #neverTrump is a serious viewpoint that this becomes, not a 3-way, but maybe a 4-way race and conservatives could run someone who was not on any ballot in any primary, in addition to Bloomberg running or whoever challenges the felon on the left.  For me, a ticket with the names Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal or Scott Walker come to mind.  Not Romney.  Not Ryan.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19763
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1094 on: March 04, 2016, 05:44:30 PM »
Speaking of Bobby Jindal


The new leftist socialist (I mean democrat) governor is already trashing him for a budget deficit.

No mention that a lot of it has to do with a crash in oil prices.  So what do you do when your state is in recession?  Well if you are a damn liberal you - hike taxes - to squeeze the people who produce even more so they can pay for the wealth re distribution programs.

You want to keep the second poorest state poor.  Watch what happens in the next 4 yrs.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19447
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1095 on: March 05, 2016, 08:28:10 AM »
A Daily Expression of (Political) Gratitude:  As I have been trashing the youngest generation of voters, even to my daughter, this group that helped bring us Obama and is now so excited about Bernie and socialism.  These young 'adults' are ignorant to the failures of socialism and unlike our generation who believed at least in questioning authority instead of just voting the same as your teachers, professors and media who are at least 90% ultra liberal. This week I found out that my daughter, feared to be turning left, went out to the caucus in her small college town with no prompting from here and unlike her peers voted for the same conservative candidate as me!  That won't turn the country around but it makes me feel better about it all.  I am so proud that the destruction of our country that is about to happen is not her fault!  :-D

Liberal and leftist ideas sound great but they don't work.  I wish someone would tell the rest of her generation that.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1096 on: March 05, 2016, 10:02:47 AM »
 8-) 8-) 8-)

In a similar vein here is this from my sixteen year old son (sorry for the swearing):

"Bernie Sanders is cancer. He's tweeted things a myriad of times which demonstrate a lack of basic Econ 102 material, he only uses emotional appeals, his budget will add trillions to the debt, he'll raises taxes for literally EVERY SINGLE TAX BRACKET, he doesn't know shit about foreign policy, and his moral code makes me want to blow my fucking brains out.

"But that's all irrelevant, since he wouldn't pass a single fucking law, considering most democrats hate him and republicans probably imagine him to be Darth Vader sitting on a throne of American soldiers eating babies and damning Christ. Not only that, he wouldn't be able to do anything as a commander in chief, since his response to the only question he's been asked about ISIS on national television was to talk about climate change. Have you EVER seen him talk foreign policy? Even once? It's pathetic.

"We would effectively have no fucking president, just a whiny, emotion-worshipping, altruist, pseudo-socialist moron sleeping in a bed in the Oval Office.

"And on the front of ideology, he can't even name his own positions correctly, since he's not a socialist, or a democratic socialist, but a social democrat. He's so fucking adenine he doesn't know that "Democratic socialism" still involves appropriating the means of production.

"He's a fucking joke of a presidential candidate, and this picture is a pretty accurate description of the annoying Sanders posts that holier than thou mental 12 year olds love to spam. "

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1097 on: March 05, 2016, 04:49:49 PM »
Awesome! "Mental 12 year olds".

 :-D

You have raised your son right.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72281
    • View Profile
Re: 2016 Presidential
« Reply #1098 on: March 05, 2016, 05:09:47 PM »
I confess to being more than a tad proud  :-D :-D :-D