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.

 whembly wrote:

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Trump & Campaign strategists has a NY liberal's view of what the Republican party is made of... and in the South, they think it’s made up of a bunch of racists. It’s all part of a grand strategy, that they'd believe, of appealing to Southern white racists. I don’t believe there are as many of them as Trump & Co. evidently believes.

Vague labels like "NY liberal" are designed to shut down debate, not add to it.

 whembly wrote:

Hence, he'd be brutalized by whomever the Democrat nominee.

Where? What Southern State would vote for a Democrat?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that Trump & Campaign strategists has a NY liberal's view of what the Republican party is made of... and in the South, they think it’s made up of a bunch of racists. It’s all part of a grand strategy, that they'd believe, of appealing to Southern white racists. I don’t believe there are as many of them as Trump & Co. evidently believes.

Vague labels like "NY liberal" are designed to shut down debate, not add to it.

He's a lifelong NY'er with many liberal proclivities.

There's this idea that the GOP is nothing more than southern racists.

 whembly wrote:

Hence, he'd be brutalized by whomever the Democrat nominee.

Where? What Southern State would vote for a Democrat?

I could see Clinton winning SC, FL, VA and possibly GA easily.

 jasper76 wrote:
I heard Cruz on the radio signaling that if Drumpf wins Texas, he's gonna drop out.

Well, Cruz's the projected winner there so I don't think its an issue any more.

Rubio, Kasich, and Carson need to drop now and throw their support (and any deligates) to Cruz. If not, Trump will walk away with the nomination and Hillary will be elected President.

Actually...

If, and it's "iffy" now, Rubio truly does win Florida ( a closed primary ) and that fact that he's extremely competitive in the North/Northwest states.

Plus, Cruz winning a couple...

We may indeed have a brokered convention.

I'd be like:


Keep in mind, tonight is ALL ABOUT the DELEGATES.

Trump/Cruz/Rubio being really close could prevent any of the three from reaching the 1st ballot nomination, and thus a brokered convention begins.

 Breotan wrote:
I just don't understand my fellow right of center voters in the US. They have to know they're cutting off the nose to spite the face.

All this talk of Trump winning is making me a sad panda.

Spoiler:

They don't care. The party must be destroyed to be saved.

This reminds me of when Jesse Ventura won the governorship in Minnesota. There were two very good establishment candidates, one of whom one a US Senate seat later, and the other the namesake of a famous Democrat. Jesse beat them both with a message of populism. Of course, in those days the economy was in good shape and their were no serious problems going on. The stakes were relatively low.

After his election, both parties essentially sabotaged everything he tried to do to prove that an Independent was powerless. T-paw was the architect of obstructionism, and was rewarded for by the electorate the following election as Governor.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
On another Note, Sanders has won more delegates than Cruz or Rubio combined! I guess Socialize is more popular than mainstream Establishment conservatism or Evangelical Conservatism.

 Easy E wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
On another Note, Sanders has won more delegates than Cruz or Rubio combined! I guess Socialize is more popular than mainstream Establishment conservatism or Evangelical Conservatism.

A) there's more delegate counts total on the Democrat side.

B) there's only two of them.

Well, at least Sanders is winning Vermont. Hah!

Oklahoma: Samders and "not Trump".

Donald had a really good speech tonight, color me surprised.

Enjoyed how he went after Rubio.

Enjoyed his statement about how politicians are all talk, no action (though one has to wonder if that is supposed to be generalized or specific vs Dem politicians--he didn't specify Dems)), though).

Thought he did raise a good point about the issues that European countries are having with the young male middle east refugees..and his question about why they aren't fighting for their country was valid.


Still not swayed to vote for him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh...and I commend him for plainly and emphatically attacking Shillary.

Chris Christie looked like Capt. Needa before he got choked by Darth.

Oh, New York Daily News, you so funny.

The complete guide to fleeing President Donald Trump's America

 Breotan wrote:
No? I watched the Tea Party movement form and it was quite clear that it was the Republican grass roots getting organized.

And? Is your argument that you never said the Tea Party was more than a Republican thing, therefore no-one did?

I guess it’s a stronger argument than trying to defend 1.3% as ‘en masse’.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Hence why Rubio/Cruz won't drop out till the convention in the hopes that Trump doesn't reach the delegate minimum, for a brokered convention.

Yeah, that's the strategy that emerged after the first few primaries. But in the wake of Super Tuesday, and with numbers just breaking against Rubio as they have, the strategy might need to be re-examined. Holding votes off Trump doesn't really work if people aren't making minimum vote counts needed to claim delegates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Why would you switch from a cool primary to a lame, limp-wristed caucus?

The party's appartchiks get a lot more power and influence in a caucus.

I think the most shocking thing about tonight is that Kasich and Carson still have not dropped out.

 whembly wrote:
I usually read Slate for the lulz...

But, this was pretty spot on...

To save itself, the Republican Party must finally put the working class ahead of the donor class.

That article is basically what I've been telling you for five years!

The article is a lot more generous than I am. The article assumes Republicans have fallen in with the donor class and lost sight of what their voting base really wants by mistake. I've said it's been a cynical ploy to give what donors want, and win the power to do that by selling nonsense to the working class.

And, well, in addition to that the article also a lot better written. Noting that Sanders populist appeal is still being completely inline with Democratic core values, but made more extreme and urgent, while Trump's populist appeal is actually rejecting Republican values is an extremely well observed, and well explained. The observation about the Tea Party as a movement for fairness, that was misunderstood by the party elite is fascinating - there's not enough there to simply accept it at face value, but it's well worth keeping in mind.

It's an excellent article, and maybe points to a new way to make the Republican party something other than what they've been.


Oh, and to understand how important the ideas in that article to reforming the Republican party, but also how difficult they'll be to implement, consider Marco Rubio. For a while he was championing the reformicons. This was a movement within the Republican party that actually wanted to look at equality. The movement got a lot of hype, but problematically it's ideas were almost entirely stupid, drawn from the same supply side economics book Reagan used, albeit now they included the word opportunity even more. Anyhow, it was the movement that gave Rubio a national platform. So maybe he'll be able to push some of its ideas in the presidency?

Well, no. Very no. Rubio is deep in with the donor class. His campaign manager is billionaire Paul Singer. That's the guy who said he knew inflation was real and everywhere, because property was getting so much more expensive in Aspen, Manhattan and London.

So yeah. The Republicans need to meaningfully move their policies back to something people want to vote for. If Trump can do this well, imagine what a non-donkey-cave could do with a platform of social conservatism coupled with support for the social safety net? But doing it will not be incredibly hard. It can't just be a minor re-branding of existing Republican ideas. It needs a complete reform, root and branch, of the entire Republican platform. No sacred cows, if a new essential idea can't be reconciled with an old faithful like tax cuts, then the old faithful has to go.

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
No? I watched the Tea Party movement form and it was quite clear that it was the Republican grass roots getting organized.

And? Is your argument that you never said the Tea Party was more than a Republican thing, therefore no-one did?

I guess it’s a stronger argument than trying to defend 1.3% as ‘en masse’.

Is my argument...? Seriously? How about you pay attention to what I write? I lived here and watched the Tea Party movement get started as a bunch of disparate grass-roots movements. I followed their progress as they pushed candidates good and bad. I watched as hucksters tried their damnedest to solicit/fund raise off them. I even payed attention to how the Republican party begged at their doorsteps then kicked them to the curb after getting re-elected. I watched as liberals, Democrats, and even news people mocked, slandered, and derided the people who were involved with the Tea Party. The Tea Party was uniquely right-wing and solidly Republican. Now if anyone in these forums said otherwise, well I can't speak to that except to say they are wrong if that really is their belief.

Also, I don't have to defend anything. The article I posted said 20,000 plus or minus dropped Democrat party affiliation. I stated those 20,000 walked away "en masse" from the Democrat party. It was supposition on my part that they'd all rally around the Trump banner but if some of them went to Rubio instead, I'm not really concerned about it.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hence why Rubio/Cruz won't drop out till the convention in the hopes that Trump doesn't reach the delegate minimum, for a brokered convention.

Yeah, that's the strategy that emerged after the first few primaries. But in the wake of Super Tuesday, and with numbers just breaking against Rubio as they have, the strategy might need to be re-examined. Holding votes off Trump doesn't really work if people aren't making minimum vote counts needed to claim delegates.

That's why the also-rans need to drop. Look, I like Rubio but he needs to drop, too. All the status quo is doing is making sure Trump gets a lock on the nomination.

 Easy E wrote:
On another Note, Sanders has won more delegates than Cruz or Rubio combined! I guess Socialize is more popular than mainstream Establishment conservatism or Evangelical Conservatism.

They're totally different systems. It'd be like arguing the Golden State Warriors are better than the Denver Broncos because Golden State score more points each game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Now if anyone in these forums said otherwise, well I can't speak to that except to say they are wrong if that really is their belief.

They did. Lots of them. It dragged on through loads of threads, for months. And it was very silly.

And it was interesting to see the same sort of thing pop up, this time about Trump.

Also, I don't have to defend anything. The article I posted said 20,000 plus or minus dropped Democrat party affiliation. I stated those 20,000 walked away "en masse" from the Democrat party. It was supposition on my part that they'd all rally around the Trump banner but if some of them went to Rubio instead, I'm not really concerned about it.

Whether they went to Trump or Rubio wasn't the issue. It was using 'en masse' to describe 1.3%. It was using a big implying size and importance to describe a story where the actual figures are very small.

That's why the also-rans need to drop. Look, I like Rubio but he needs to drop, too. All the status quo is doing is making sure Trump gets a lock on the nomination.

That's the issue though. Last week it was Cruz who was falling, especially after he lost evangelicals to Trump in SC, and the story was about how he needed to drop so that Rubio could beat Trump. Now after Rubio had okay results but just missed a few key benchmarks by a point or two, its Rubio who needs to drop to let Cruz do the job. So who drops out? Rubio or Cruz?

 whembly wrote:

He's a lifelong NY'er with many liberal proclivities.

There's this idea that the GOP is nothing more than southern racists.

There is a great deal of irony in dismissing someone as an "NY liberal" because you believe he is dismissing a group of people as "Southern white racists".

Either way, the only important people I've heard argue that liberals think the GOP is dominated by "Southern white racists" are conservatives trying to push the "conservatives are persecuted" angle.

 whembly wrote:

I could see Clinton winning SC, FL, VA and possibly GA easily.

She could win, but it wouldn't be easy. The only one of those four where Clinton has a significant lead is VA.

This is turning into the nightmare scenario of Clinton vs Trump.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Well, that's a shame because The Bad Astronomer and Dear Prudence are both awesome.

Dear Prudence has been my guilty pleasure for years, although I don't like the new one as much.

If all the Republican candidates threw their delegates to Cruz, he'd actually have about two more than Trump. This posturing for a brokered convention will not end well.

Indeed - I feel like while a brokered convention might give what establishment republicans think is the right candidate (Rubio), it also might be a huge turnoff for the base the way that Hillary's super-delegates are upsetting some on the left.

 Ahtman wrote:
This is turning into the nightmare scenario of Clinton vs Trump.

The only alternatives that are somewhat plausible at this point are Clinton v Rubio and Clinton v Cruz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Indeed - I feel like while a brokered convention might give what establishment republicans think is the right candidate (Rubio), it also might be a huge turnoff for the base the way that Hillary's super-delegates are upsetting some on the left.

Yeah, the Trump voters are angry enough right now and their guy is winning. Imagine their reaction if he won the most delegates but got shut out at the convention. They certainly won't accept they got over-ruled and line up behind Rubio or Cruz.

 sebster wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
This is turning into the nightmare scenario of Clinton vs Trump.

The only alternatives that are somewhat plausible at this point are Clinton v Rubio and Clinton v Cruz.

While still pretty bad it isn't a nightmare, just quite bad.

Perhaps Hilary will take a hint from the founding fathers and offer Trump the vice-presidency. That would be the dream ticket!

Wow...so quick to crown Hillary....

If you look, besides MA, Bernie won the blue states.

He took one of the red states (OK).

And Hillary won the Red states that vote Red in the general...so you know they will go Red in Nov.

If you don't/can't win the states that your party tends to dominate/represent....what is that really saying?

It's saying to me that Democratic voters in Democratic states don't want you representing them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps Hilary will take a hint from the founding fathers and offer Trump the vice-presidency. That would be the dream ticket!

The ghost of Osama Bin Laden is that you?

 TheMeanDM wrote:
Wow...so quick to crown Hillary....

If you look, besides MA, Bernie won the blue states.

He took one of the red states (OK).

And Hillary won the Red states that vote Red in the general...so you know they will go Red in Nov.

If you don't/can't win the states that your party tends to dominate/represent....what is that really saying?

It's saying to me that Democratic voters in Democratic states don't want you representing them.

What it's saying is that the Democratic voters in those states trend to the left of Hillary. Which means they certainly won't be voting for Trump or whomever in the fall. Really isn't that hard to figure out.

 sebster wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
On another Note, Sanders has won more delegates than Cruz or Rubio combined! I guess Socialize is more popular than mainstream Establishment conservatism or Evangelical Conservatism.

They're totally different systems. It'd be like arguing the Golden State Warriors are better than the Denver Broncos because Golden State score more points each game.

I know, i know. I just like to rub it in a bit that the establishment R's are getting killed, and the Socialist isn't getting killed. It is the end of the GOP as we know it, and now onto the new GOP!

 Ahtman wrote:
This is turning into the nightmare scenario of Clinton vs Trump.

In honor of yesterday's polling I have worn my brown shirt, because I believe in joining the winning side, and my brown pants, because I think we are going to need them.

"Trump, he has plans to make the trains run on time, the best plans ever! Not like those other guys. They're stupid."

I actually think that Cruz overperformed a bit.

He won TX, OK and AK. But, the next round isn't as favorable for Cruz...

Rubio finally won a state in MN! There's a thought that Rubio's strength will manifest itself on 3/15 where FL is in play.

Pre-Super Tuesday, Trump was polled/estimated that he'd win all states except for TX. He lost 4, and barely squeaked by in 4 other states by less than 3%... So, in this regard, he kinda under performed and the likelihood of a 'Contested Convention' seems to grow.

Guys, check out 538 here:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/republicans/

It's bitch'n cool.

Based on that tool... doesn't that point out that Rubio/Cruz need to form a unity ticket to take down Trump? I wonder how that works... *could* one guy throw his assigned delegates to the other?