Ouze wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
http://theminorityreportblog.com/2015/12/03/bombshell-marco-rubios-alleged-mistress-comes-forward/


although from what I've seen there's something of a lack of actual details/story.

yet.


would that finish him here then ?

I doubt it. Unless the mistress is a dude or a prostitute, extramarital affairs usually aren't a death sentence in American politics. And sometimes, not even if it was a dude, or a prostitute.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This is comedy gold: Donald Trump has declared war on Scotland!

As a result of Trump's comments against Muslims, the Scottish government has dropped Trump as a trade ambassador (he built a golf course in Scotland) and Scotland's universities have withdrawn the honorary degrees they awarded him.

Trump is not a happy bunny.

Still, if America wants to make a big deal out of this, we're ready to repel invaders! Bring it on!

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This is comedy gold: Donald Trump has declared war on Scotland!

As a result of Trump's comments against Muslims, the Scottish government has dropped Trump as a trade ambassador (he built a golf course in Scotland) and Scotland's universities have withdrawn the honorary degrees they awarded him.

Trump is not a happy bunny.

Still, if America wants to make a big deal out of this, we're ready to repel invaders! Bring it on!

You Brits are always so smug behind your Haggis Defense Line.

 notprop wrote:
Trump does look like he is wearing a Haggis on his head most of the time so perhaps he has plans of his own.

Haggis proliferation will be the bane of the modern age - MAH.

Mutually Assured Haggis!

 agnosto wrote:
Gotta watch out for the Scottish highland regiment:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Spoiler:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This is comedy gold: Donald Trump has declared war on Scotland!

As a result of Trump's comments against Muslims, the Scottish government has dropped Trump as a trade ambassador (he built a golf course in Scotland) and Scotland's universities have withdrawn the honorary degrees they awarded him.

Trump is not a happy bunny.

Still, if America wants to make a big deal out of this, we're ready to repel invaders! Bring it on!

You Brits are always so smug behind your Haggis Defense Line.

You'd better believe it, Frazz! Do you think a weiner dog is a match for a Highland Terrier?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 notprop wrote:
Trump does look like he is wearing a Haggis on his head most of the time so perhaps he has plans of his own.

Haggis proliferation will be the bane of the modern age - MAH.

Mutually Assured Haggis!

No surprise to see an Englishman badmouth Haggis ....

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?

Hard to say. It's still nearly 2 months until the Iowa caucuses, and almost 3 until New Hampshire, so you're certainly going to have to wait at least that long just to have the field winnowed down a bit. There may be a brokered convention if no one reached critical mass.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?

Hard to say. It's still nearly 2 months until the Iowa caucuses, and almost 3 until New Hampshire, so you're certainly going to have to wait at least that long just to have the field winnowed down a bit. There may be a brokered convention if no one reached critical mass.

If it looks like Trump is going to win, and heaven forbid that happens, could the Republicans gang up to 'oust' him, or would that tear the party in half, and seriously annoy Trump's supporters?

Because as bad as Trump is, it would be very undemocratic if he were ousted, after winning fair and square.

Is there a legal mechanism to do this? The newspapers are talking about this possibility.

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?

Hard to say. It's still nearly 2 months until the Iowa caucuses, and almost 3 until New Hampshire, so you're certainly going to have to wait at least that long just to have the field winnowed down a bit. There may be a brokered convention if no one reached critical mass.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If it looks like Trump is going to win, and heaven forbid that happens, could the Republicans gang up to 'oust' him, or would that tear the party in half, and seriously annoy Trump's supporters?

Because as bad as Trump is, it would be very undemocratic if he were ousted, after winning fair and square.

Is there a legal mechanism to do this? The newspapers are talking about this possibility.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Because as bad as Trump is, it would be very undemocratic if he were ousted, after winning fair and square

exit polls like this one have historically asked voters in Iowa and New Hampshire when they made their final decision on how to vote. These exit polls find that voters take their sweet time. In Iowa, on average, only 35 percent of voters had come to a final decision before the final month of the campaign. And in New Hampshire, only 29 percent had. (Why is the fraction lower in New Hampshire than in Iowa? Probably because voters there are waiting for the Iowa results before locking in their choice. In fact, about half of New Hampshire voters make up their minds in the final week of the campaign.)


ELECTION 1 MONTH OUT 1 WEEK TO 1 MONTH OUT FINAL WEEK
2004 Democrats 30% 27% 42%
2008 Republicans 28 31 40
2008 Democrats 49 24 27
2012 Republicans 32 21 46
Iowa Average 35 26 39


SHARE OF N.H. VOTERS WHO DECIDED
ELECTION 1 MONTH OUT 1 WEEK TO 1 MONTH OUT FINAL WEEK
2004 Democrats 26% 19% 54%
2008 Republicans 29 22 50
2008 Democrats 34 17 48
2012 Republicans 28 26 46
New Hampshire Average 29 21 50

By comparison, voters decide much earlier in general elections. In Ohio in 2012, for example, 76 percent of voters had settled on Mitt Romney or Barack Obama by the end of September. This is why it’s common to see last-minute surges or busts in nomination races (think Rick Santorum or Howard Dean), but not in general elections.

If even by New Year’s Day (a month before the Iowa caucuses, which are scheduled for Feb. 1) only about one-third of Iowa voters will have come to their final decision, the percentage must be even lower now — perhaps something like 20 percent of voters are locked in. When you see an Iowa poll, you should keep in mind that the real situation looks something more like this:

The numbers below reflect what you get if you take the Real Clear Politics average, put 80 percent of voters in the undecided category and scale everyone down accordingly

CANDIDATE SUPPORT IN IOWA
Undecided 80%
Donald Trump 5%
Ben Carson 4%
Ted Cruz 3%
Marco Rubio 2%
Jeb Bush 1%
Carly Fiorina 1%
Mike Huckabee 1%
Chris Christie 1%

So, could Trump win? We confront two stubborn facts: first, that nobody remotely like Trump has won a major-party nomination in the modern era. (There are better precedents for candidates like Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz, who might loosely be compared to George McGovern and Barry Goldwater). And second, as is always a problem in analysis of presidential campaigns, we don’t have all that many data points, so unprecedented events can occur with some regularity. For my money, that adds up to Trump’s chances being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent. Your mileage may vary. But you probably shouldn’t rely solely on the polls to make your case; it’s still too soon for that.

There are two types of Machiavellians in politics, Selfish Machiavellians and Kind Machiavellians. The Selfish ones are the ones we usually think of — the nakedly ambitious people who are always strategizing, sometimes ruthlessly, for their own personal advantage. The Kind Machiavellians realize that it’s smart to get along with people, so they pick their friendships strategically, feigning affection toward those who might be useful.

In Washington and maybe in life, there are many more Kind Machiavellians than Selfish ones. But Ted Cruz has always stood out for being nakedly ambitious for himself.

He was always drawn to establishment institutions: Princeton, Harvard Law. His personal drive to gain elite posts was noted, even by the standards of such places. He learned tennis to get a clerkship with Justice William Rehnquist. According to The Boston Globe, a female law student who was giving him a ride was shocked when he quickly asked her about her I.Q. and SAT scores.

He joined the Republican establishment while young, working for George W. Bush, though he was marginalized when administration jobs were handed out, reportedly because his ambition was off-putting. Yet Cruz is intelligent, and knows that sometimes you have to switch tactics in order to climb. Over the past few years, Cruz has become a team player. In fact, he’s become a central member of the conservative establishment.

A little history lesson is in order. During the 1970s conservatives self-consciously built establishment institutions to counter the liberal establishment. But with the election of Ronald Reagan, the conservative establishment split into two. There was the regular conservative establishment, filled with mainstream conservatives who wanted to use the inside levers of power that Republicans now controlled.

But there was also a conservative counter-establishment. This was populated with people like Paul Weyrich, Richard Viguerie, Brent Bozell and others who were temperamentally incapable of governance. Many of these Old Right people broke with Reagan because he wasn’t ideologically pure on this or that policy matter.

Today the conservative community still has at least two establishments, or three if you want to throw in the young Reform Conservatives. The mainstream establishment tends to side with party leaders like Paul Ryan and whoever the presidential nominee is. The Old Right Counter Conservative Establishment has grown in recent years. For example, the Heritage Foundation, which used to be more or less conservative establishment, has gone more Counter Establishment.

The difference is the establishment wants to use the levers of power to practically pass reforms. The Counter Establishment believes that Washington is pervasively corrupt and is implacably hostile to the G.O.P. leadership.

Since he came to Washington, Ted Cruz has meticulously aligned himself with the rising and rich conservative Counter Establishment. He’s called his party leader a liar on the Senate floor. In another recent floor speech he accused every Republican but him and Mike Lee of selling out their principles for money. His efforts to shut down the government did enormous harm to the Republican Party and to the country, but they cemented his relationship with the members of the Counter Establishment. Crucially, those battles enabled him to amass the email lists that are a large part of his donor base.

His campaign is uniting the Counter Establishment. According to some excellent reporting in the National Journal, he was rapturously received by members of the Council for National Policy, an important Counter Establishment gathering. He’s been endorsed by the old guard, Viguerie and Bozell.

he Counter Establishment is now nearly as financially flush and institutionally entrenched as the mainstream establishment. Cruz has been able to tap into it to raise gobs of money. In the third quarter, Cruz raised $12.2 million, about twice what rival Marco Rubio raised over the same period. His super PACs raised $31 million in the few weeks of his campaign, largely from hedge fund manager Robert Mercer. He’s had fund-raisers hosted by Joseph Konzelmann, a managing director at Goldman Sachs.

He’s won over the Counter Establishment and even some of the regular establishment by being tactical in his policy positions, shifting his views most notoriously on trade promotion authority and foreign policy generally. He savages Republicans habitually but initially refused to criticize Donald Trump. As Eliana Johnson of National Review put it, the paradox of Cruz is that “The man who boasts of his ideological purity is perhaps the most obviously tactical candidate.”

Cruz is riding the shift in the conservative activist establishment, the way groups like the Club for Growth now provide a power base for someone who wants to run against the G.O.P. leadership.

A friend once joked that the journalist has the ultimate power: The power to choose who he wants to be co-opted by. Ted Cruz is surging as the figurehead of the rich and interlocked Counter Establishment. And he gets to do it while pretending that he is antiestablishment. That’s a nice trick. Even a Machiavellian one.

whembly wrote:

HAIL MADAME PRESIDENT CLINTON!

<cue the Star Wars Imperial march>

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
When do we find out who'll be the Republican candidate for 1600? Does the voting end next Spring?

Hard to say. It's still nearly 2 months until the Iowa caucuses, and almost 3 until New Hampshire, so you're certainly going to have to wait at least that long just to have the field winnowed down a bit. There may be a brokered convention if no one reached critical mass.

A "brokered convention" would be a political junkie dream scenario!

Holy ballz man... it'll be fugly, yet awesome.

But, if that does happen, lots of hurt fee-fees would keep the typical GOP voters from the polls...

HAIL MADAME PRESIDENT CLINTON!

<cue the Star Wars Imperial march>

In reality, the GOP nominating contest will be decided by an intricate, state-by-state slog for the 2,472 delegates at stake between February and June. And thanks to the Republican National Committee’s allocation rules, the votes of “Blue Zone” Republicans — the more moderate GOP primary voters who live in Democratic-leaning states and congressional districts — could weigh more than those of more conservative voters who live in deeply red zones. Put another way: The Republican voters who will have little to no sway in the general election could have some of the most sway in the primary.

As The New York Times’ Nate Cohn astutely observed in January, Republicans in blue states hold surprising power in the GOP presidential primary process even though they are “all but extinct in Washington, since their candidates lose general elections to Democrats.” This explains why Republicans have selected relatively moderate presidential nominees while the party’s members in Congress have continued to veer right.

The key to this pattern: “Blue-state Republicans are less religious, more moderate and less rural than their red-state counterparts,” Cohn concluded after crunching Pew Research survey data. By Cohn’s math, Republicans in states that Obama won in 2012 were 15 percentage points likelier to support Romney in the 2012 primary and 9 points likelier to support McCain in 2008 than their red-state compatriots. Romney and McCain’s advantage in blue states made it “all but impossible for their more conservative challengers to win the nomination,” Cohn wrote.

But their real mojo lurks in the delegate chase. The electorate that nominates GOP presidential candidates is much bluer than the ones that nominate other GOP officials, a distinction that is almost impossible to overstate. Look at where the Republican Party lives: Only 11 of 54 GOP senators and 26 of 247 GOP representatives hail from Obama-won locales, but there are 1,247 delegates at stake in Obama-won states, compared with just 1,166 in Romney states.

What’s more, an imbalance lies in a nuance of the RNC’s delegate allocation. Although it can be a byzantine process, here are the basics: The RNC allows state parties some leeway in how to award delegates to candidates. In a few states, including Florida, Ohio and Arizona, the primary winner wins all the state’s delegates. In most others, delegates are allocated either proportionally to votes or by the winner in each congressional district.

A total of 832 delegates (about 34 percent of all 2,472 delegates) spanning 23 states will be awarded based on results at the congressional district level. Here’s the catch: According to the RNC’s allotment rules, three delegates are at stake in each district, regardless of the partisan lopsidedness of the seat. This creates a “rotten boroughs” phenomenon in which Blue Zone Republicans’ votes can be disproportionately valuable.

For example, three delegates are up for grabs in New York’s heavily Latino, Bronx-based 15th District, which cast just 5,315 votes for Romney in 2012. But there are also three delegates at stake in Alabama’s 6th District, which covers Birmingham’s whitest suburbs and gave Romney 233,803 votes. In other words, a GOP primary vote cast in the bluest part of the Bronx could be worth 43 times more than a vote cast in the reddest part of Alabama.

The RNC partially compensates for this imbalance in the way it awards delegates on a statewide basis. Republicans award “bonus” delegates to states with lots of GOP officeholders and states with the best GOP performance in the last election. For example, despite both states having nine congressional districts, Tennessee will send 58 delegates to the Cleveland convention while Massachusetts will send 42.

But the bigger boon to Rubio, Bush and other moderates is that the opinions of GOP voters in places like Massachusetts count at all in this process — in an era when the Bay State sends zero Republicans to Congress. It’s a huge factor that many pundits tend to overlook, and it’s why the temperament and qualities that the broader party looks for in a nominee differ so much from those of the loudest and most ideological Freedom Caucus types in Washington.

It’s not that national polls are skewed in favor of conservative, red-meat Republicans. It’s that the Republican Party’s delegate geography rewards their moderate rivals.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

whembly wrote:

HAIL MADAME PRESIDENT CLINTON!

<cue the Star Wars Imperial march>

Probably don't want to give her ideas, because if she were to license and use the Imperial march in her campaign, she would get even more votes.

 whembly wrote:
Well, well... Carson threatens to go 3rd party if there's a brokered convention...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/be3d9dd89ed64928ae12c9dd452f084e/carson-threatens-leave-republican-party

 whembly wrote:
Well, well... Carson threatens to go 3rd party if there's a brokered convention...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/be3d9dd89ed64928ae12c9dd452f084e/carson-threatens-leave-republican-party

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

whembly wrote:

HAIL MADAME PRESIDENT CLINTON!

<cue the Star Wars Imperial march>

Probably don't want to give her ideas, because if she were to license and use the Imperial march in her campaign, she would get even more votes.

Hell, if she used the imperial march, I would vote for her(not on that alone). I. On the fence as it is. If she has the self awareness to take it tongue in cheek, more power to her. I had my mother in law walk into my wedding to that song. The clueless applause was more than worth it.

Prestor Jon wrote:


A brokered convention would make for some interesting tv but it wouldn't favor Trump.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-gops-primary-rules-might-doom-carson-and-cruz/

The FBI has taken possession of Bryan Pagliano's computer system.

The State Department has told Senate investigators it cannot find backup copies of emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the top Hillary Clinton IT staffer who maintained her email server but has asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions on the matter.

State officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate what’s known as a “.pst file” for Pagliano’s work during Clinton’s tenure, which would have included copies of the tech expert’s emails, according to a letter Chairman Chuck Grassley sent to Secretary of State John Kerry that was obtained by POLITICO.

The department also told the committee the FBI has taken possession of Pagliano’s government computer system, where traces of the messages are most likely to be found, according to the letter.

Grassley, an Iowa Republican, has been considering whether to grant Pagliano immunity in exchange for testimony on who approved Clinton's private email setup and whether anyone raised any objections to the system. The controversy over her decision to bypass a government email address, which would have made her messages easier for reporters and the public to obtain, has dogged the presidential hopeful for much of the year, though it has subsided in recent weeks.

Pagliano — who worked for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, then followed her to the State Department — has refused to discuss Clinton's email arrangement or his role in it, invoking his right against self-incrimination before the House Benghazi Committee earlier this fall.

Clinton had personally paid Pagliano to maintain her home-made server, which is also currently in the FBI’s possession. The agency has been investigating whether classified material was ever put at risk because she used her own server instead of the standard State email system. The State Department has designated about 1,000 of her emails as classified documents, which would never have been allowed on such a private system. Clinton’s representatives maintain that the emails were not classified at the time they were sent.

Pagliano’s lawyer could not be reached for comment.

Grassley had requested Pagliano’s emails to help inform his decision whether to grant Pagliano immunity.

“Given that the committee is unable to obtain [Pagliano’s] testimony at this time, I am seeking copies of his official State Department emails relevant to the Committee’s inquiry before proceeding to consider whether it might be appropriate to grant him immunity and compel his testimony,” Grassley's letter states. It notes that such emails are a “top priority” in a list of several outstanding Clinton-related inquiries the panel has sent to the department.

The State Department said that while it has located a backup for emails Pagliano sent after Clinton left State, officials cannot find the file for the backup covering work he did while she was still there.
“The Department has located a .pst from Mr. Pagliano’s recent work at the Department as a contractor, but the files are from after Secretary Clinton left the State Department. We have not yet located a .pst that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” said Alec Gerlach, a State Department spokesman. “We are continuing to search for Mr. Pagliano’s emails which the Department may have otherwise retained. We will, of course, share emails responsive to Senator Grassley’s requests if we locate them.”

State, like many federal agencies, did not have a systematic email archiving system for years. When the server issue first arose in the spring, State acknowledged that it did not automatically archive the email traffic of senior employees — relying on them to make their own backups, or “.pst,” if needed. Under current rules, federal employees are responsible for ensuring their official emails are saved.

State has not asked Pagliano whether he has any official emails in his possession, as it has with other top Clinton staffers who used personal email for work. It is unclear if Pagliano’s Fifth Amendment rights would protect him from turning over such messages.

Grassley encouraged State to continue searching for Pagliano’s emails by looking at the back-up email files of other State employees he may have emailed about the Clinton server. He letter seeks “a full and detailed written explanation of why it failed to maintain an archive, copy, or backup of Mr. Pagliano’s email file,” among other requests related to the IT staffer's emails.

While State hasn't been able to meet Grassley’s requests so far, his letter did offer some rare praise for the department, commending Kerry and State for what Grassley called a “recent increase in cooperation and focus on the committee’s request.” The letter says Judiciary has prioritized 22 requests for information and received seven “fully complete responses” and nine “partially complete responses.”

And State, which has been bombarded by inquiries about Clinton's email setup, seems to appreciate the recognition: “As Senator Grassley noted, the State Department has been working very closely with his staff to get him the requested information and documents, and we are making progress,” Gerlach added.

Grassley had been blocking the confirmation of about 20 of State’s Foreign Service nominees because the department hadn’t fulfilled various document requests, including those for another probe he’s conducting on the dual-employment status of top Clinton adviser Huma Abedin. Abedin advised Clinton while she was also working for a consulting company; Grassley has been asking for information about the arrangement since 2013.

Given State’s recent responsiveness, however, he recently dropped the 20 holds but maintained a block on two more high-level nominees: Brian James Egan to be a State legal adviser and David Malcolm Robinson to be assistant secretary for conflict and stabilization operations and coordinator for reconstruction and stabilization. In November, Grassley also added a third hold on another top-level Obama State Department nominee, Thomas Shannon Jr., to be undersecretary of state for political affairs.

Grassley in his recent letter, however, hinted that if State continues working with his committee at the current pace, he could be amenable to releasing his holds.
“Assuming the committee receives the additional items promised by your staff in yesterday’s meeting, I intend to take action to recognize this progress before Senators leave town for the holiday break,” he said, nodding specifically to any copies of Pagliano emails they could discover by searching other employee’s emails.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You do understand that someone can invoke their fifth amendment rights without actually being involved in anything, right?