Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ted Cruz, who's whole campaign is based on vote for me because I'm not Donald Trump, won the Republican vote.

To be fair, "I'm not Trump" is a pretty compelling argument.

Only as long as Trump is involved. Once he's gone, you're left with nothing.

I thought this was very evident in the last debate, which Trump skipped. Cruz looks like a wayyyyy less reasonable option with comparing him to Trump. I think Trump's absence there, and people coming to their senses when it's time to actually vote rather than participate in a poll without real consequences, really helped Rubio. Definitely rooting for Rubio!

I've been joking about getting an "Independents for Rubio" sticker here. I never do that, and I actually voted Democratic the last few cycles, but out of this field on both sides I like him by far the best! I also think he has the best chance in the general election.

Aside from his grandstanding during the Senate oversight committee on the Iran treaty, Rubio speaks a lot of sense on foreign issues. Could be a good VP choice for somebody.

So, how is America voting for a socialist ? I'm really surprised.

 godardc wrote:
So, how is America voting for a socialist ? I'm really surprised.

What is considered socialism in the USA is miles away from what we in Europe consider to be socialism

Huckabee suspends his campaign, and nothing of value was lost.

Good luck with renegotiating your contract with Fox News, sir!

 godardc wrote:
So, how is America voting for a socialist ? I'm really surprised.

A proportion of Democrats in one small state voted for a socialist. A proportion of Democrats in another small state are going to do the same Monday. Then we won't hear much more about him, unless he massively outperforms huge polling gaps in every other state.

I love all the Rubio spin. He is the Establishments last chance this year... and they are betting big on his.... third place finish in Iowa?

Am I the only one more scared of the thought of a president Cruz than a president Trump?

 Easy E wrote:
I love all the Rubio spin. He is the Establishments last chance this year... and they are betting big on his.... third place finish in Iowa?

We should consider that "third place finish" has about as much meaning as "front runner" at this point, which has been the problem all along during this primary so far. It's been a case of "I'm the #1 in the poll, only 7 out of 10 people are voting for someone else", and that's not any kind of mandate no matter how much the media wants to spin that.

The percentage breakdown for the GOP in Iowa was 28/24/23% which is pretty close to a three way tie, especially once you look at the actual delegate count: 8/7/7.

Seaward wrote:
I think it'd be tough to claim that Christie, Bush, Rubio, etc. aren't Republicans.

I was being facetious of course, but then none of them have been really leading since this started either. Rubio is the closest in Iowa with a memory of third. Right now the Republican frontrunners are a theocratic dildo and a carnival barker with serious narcissism issues.

 Ahtman wrote:
I was being facetious of course, but then none of them have been really leading since this started either. Rubio is the closest in Iowa with a memory of third. Right now the Republican frontrunners are a theocratic dildo and a carnival barker with serious narcissism issues.

Iowa historically doesn't mean much to the Republicans. It always goes for the theocratist. See: Huckabee in '08, then Santorum in '12. I think the only time in modern memory it's gotten the eventual GOP nominee right was Bush in 2000. McCain lost it hard and came back to be the nominee in '08.

If Rubio can pull off a decent showing in New Hampshire, then the 'establishment' vote will no longer be split, because Christie, Kucinich, poor ol' Jeb, etc. will all be dropping out. He'll start to surge, I predict.

Even if Rubio gets all the votes from the rest of the establishment crowd, about 2/3rds of the R primary voters seem to be against the establishment candidate. That does not leave him much room to 'surge'.

 CptJake wrote:
Even if Rubio gets all the votes from the rest of the establishment crowd, about 2/3rds of the R primary voters seem to be against the establishment candidate. That does not leave him much room to 'surge'.

More than 2/3rda voted against the current front runner and "winner" of Iowa.

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Even if Rubio gets all the votes from the rest of the establishment crowd, about 2/3rds of the R primary voters seem to be against the establishment candidate. That does not leave him much room to 'surge'.

More than 2/3rda voted against the current front runner and "winner" of Iowa.

I don't think that is a good break down. The two broad categories Rs have right now are 'establishment' and 'anti-establishment'. That does not break well for the 'establishment' guy(s) right now.

I think eventually voters start to focus on 'electability' and Rubio will benefit and Cruz will lose some support. Trump is a wild card there. I head some guy on XM Progress talking about a poll/study in OH and PA and Trump did well among D/Union member working class guys (polled more than 25% against Sanders and Clinton as the D alternatives).

 skyth wrote:
Am I the only one more scared of the thought of a president Cruz than a president Trump?

No you are not. Cruz is a fundamentalist Christian who intends to impose Christianity on the populous via political means. He is miles away more frightening than Trump IMO, but fortunately he is so unpalatable to everyone outside the religious right bubble that a Cruz nomination would all but garuntee a Democratic victory.

Imagine if Saunders and trump both lose the primary and decide to run independent campaigns!

Now that would be super-fun!

 Easy E wrote:
I love all the Rubio spin. He is the Establishments last chance this year... and they are betting big on his.... third place finish in Iowa?

This is kinda funny, because Rubio was elected as "the" Tea Party Candidate.

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I love all the Rubio spin. He is the Establishments last chance this year... and they are betting big on his.... third place finish in Iowa?

This is kinda funny, because Rubio was elected as "the" Tea Party Candidate.

And then he joined the gang of eight and tried to get something done...goodbye base and talk radio.

Apologies if this has been done to death before, but where is the birther movement against Ted Cruz's eligibility for President?

When you think of all the hassle that Obama got, it's only fair that the Democrats respond in kind

The BBC is reporting that the final difference between Clinton and Sanders was 0.2%. linky

That seems a lot closer than expected, does it not?

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I love all the Rubio spin. He is the Establishments last chance this year... and they are betting big on his.... third place finish in Iowa?

This is kinda funny, because Rubio was elected as "the" Tea Party Candidate.

It's been a while since I heard the Tea party being mentioned, and come to think of it, it's been a while since Mitt Romney's name cropped up.

What's he up to these days?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What's he up to these days?

Comforting himself in a bed filled with cash I imagine.

 CptJake wrote:
I think eventually voters start to focus on 'electability' and Rubio will benefit and Cruz will lose some support. Trump is a wild card there. I head some guy on XM Progress talking about a poll/study in OH and PA and Trump did well among D/Union member working class guys (polled more than 25% against Sanders and Clinton as the D alternatives).

I mean, you gotta hope they do, but the "electability" argument is such anathema to the conservative base after McCain and Romney that I don't know if it'll ever happen. I actually really like Rubio, and he's my preferred pick now that my boy Rand has confirmed he'll be stuck in the usual libertarian Hall of Irrelevance, but despite the fact that he's the only Republican candidate who actually wins head-to-head "if the election were held today..." polls against either Clinton or Sanders, I feel like the Republican core is committed to its nonsensical "McCain/Romney didn't win because they weren't conservative enough!" schtick.

Trump really is the wild card, and I wish he wasn't. As much as I like him (mostly for pissing off people I dislike), he's got to get out pretty soon. His national favorability among the overall electorate is underwater by something like 30 points.

 Goliath wrote:
The BBC is reporting that the final difference between Clinton and Sanders was 0.2%. linky

That seems a lot closer than expected, does it not?

I think Hillary won by 3 delegates, and 6 of them were decided via coin toss.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What's he up to these days?

Comforting himself in a bed filled with cash I imagine.

Has anybody ever wondered how a Romney presidency would have panned out?

Gerald Ford springs to mind

 d-usa wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
The BBC is reporting that the final difference between Clinton and Sanders was 0.2%. linky

That seems a lot closer than expected, does it not?

I think Hillary won by 3 delegates, and 6 of them were decided via coin toss.

She was 6 for 6 in the coin toss mechanism.

Man... she needs to pick my next lotto numbers.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Clinton is just as bad. Asking women to vote for Clinton because she's a woman, is a terrible idea for running a political campaign.

You keep saying that, but why? I don't know where you are getting this at all. Hillary Clinton's campaign has built almost nothing on her gender.

Clinton is running on "If you look into the future, you will see me looking back at you from the Oval Office. Which list of mine do you want to be on when the day comes?"

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Apologies if this has been done to death before, but where is the birther movement against Ted Cruz's eligibility for President?

When you think of all the hassle that Obama got, it's only fair that the Democrats respond in kind

Democrats started that whole thing during the Clinton vs Obama primary in '08.

There is no 'Cruz birther' movement at the moment.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
The BBC is reporting that the final difference between Clinton and Sanders was 0.2%. linky

That seems a lot closer than expected, does it not?

I think Hillary won by 3 delegates, and 6 of them were decided via coin toss.

She was 6 for 6 in the coin toss mechanism.

Man... she needs to pick my next lotto numbers.

See if we can settle Benghazi via coin toss?

 d-usa wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I love all the Rubio spin. He is the Establishments last chance this year... and they are betting big on his.... third place finish in Iowa?

We should consider that "third place finish" has about as much meaning as "front runner" at this point, which has been the problem all along during this primary so far. It's been a case of "I'm the #1 in the poll, only 7 out of 10 people are voting for someone else", and that's not any kind of mandate no matter how much the media wants to spin that.

The percentage breakdown for the GOP in Iowa was 28/24/23% which is pretty close to a three way tie, especially once you look at the actual delegate count: 8/7/7.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I love all the Rubio spin. He is the Establishments last chance this year... and they are betting big on his.... third place finish in Iowa?

This is kinda funny, because Rubio was elected as "the" Tea Party Candidate.

And then he joined the gang of eight and tried to get something done...goodbye base and talk radio.

I love both of these posts . I think people are overplaying how much winning Iowa means - historically, you just need to do decently, the winner certainly doesn't always win the primary. Santorum won last time, for goodness sake!

I love that Rubio tried to compromise and get something done with the Gang of Eight (but I'm an independent voter who went for Obama the last two cycles). I think he does have appeal on the far right (see the tea party comment above) and it seems he actually siphoned off some votes from Trump! But my hope is he would actually be willing to work to accomplish things if elected (I had the same hope for Obama, and personally felt the fact that he was unable to work with the Congress was as much his fault as theirs).

For voters in the middle, having someone who has in the past tried to compromise for the good of the country can only be a good thing. Here's hoping he can beat Cruz, who I would never vote for... personally, I think Trump has zero chance at actually being nominated (people might express support for him in anger to a pollster, but actually giving him the keys to the White House is another matter entirely!).