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.

The deepening division between left and right in US politics makes it a certainty that anyone elected will be disliked by nearly half the population "just because".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The deepening division between left and right in US politics makes it a certainty that anyone elected will be disliked by nearly half the population "just because".

I dislike everyone on general principle. You always start there. Then, you allow tolerance of people that you would play an RPG with. Unless they subscribe to ignorant 2nd edition D&D 10 coins per pound monetary systems. Then go back to hating them.

 sebster wrote:
I think we can all agree that the US didn't sink in to the sea. Same for the Bush admin really, I mean that's almost a poster child for everything I'd fear in a US president (pointless war, unfunded tax cut) but in the end the nation rolled along okay, it didn't sink in to the sea.

Well, under the Bush Administration the whole nation didn't sink into the sea, just New Orleans.

Let's not reduce the impact that Government policy has on people's lives. For some people during these administrations, their worlds did change dramatically with things like Medicare part D, Iraq/Afghan Wars, Obamacare, and a host of other smaller lower profile things. As a whole the nation keeps going, but individuals and regions are greatly impacted by Government Policy decisions. it is unavoidable really. To them, the decision is life-altering.

Politics matter way more than most people give it credit for.

... so this business with Trump & Cruz's wives......

..... one assumes that -- once again -- the primaries aren't normally quite like this then ?

 reds8n wrote:
... so this business with Trump & Cruz's wives......

..... one assumes that -- once again -- the primaries aren't normally quite like this then ?

The problem with SuperPAC not being under control of the candidates.

Trump assumed that this anti-Trump PAC was Cruz' campaign and lashes out...

Cruz says it ain't me coward.

Trump be like:


FWIW, his wife is pretty danged hot.

It was/is quite a.... eyecatching ............. image.

Did wonder perhaps if the Mormons who posted it -- it was them right ? -- perhaps haven't quite got their finger on the pulse of what your average American thinks when they see such an image.

Presumably Trumps' "response" is just more of his usual bluster, and perhaps a reference to the SUPER SECRET INFO 111 that Annonymous et al were, apparently, claiming they had uncovered about Cruz/his wife, prostitutes and so on ?

"Candy wrappers" or somesuch ?

Trump can push his tarrof/tax agenda all he wants.

It's Congress that sets those and if he (heaven forbid) were president, I think that it would be nearly a repeat of the blockage of Obama policies....vote this down, bote that down, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trump can push his tarrof/tax agenda all he wants.

It's Congress that sets those and if he (heaven forbid) were president, I think that it would be nearly a repeat of the blockage of Obama policies....vote this down, bote that down, etc.

I wonder when the "Liberals and Conservatives United Against Trump" bus starts rolling? Maybe it will take a Trump primary victory before the David Brookes of the world start endorsing Clinton.

Does anyone still seriously think we are going to a brokered GOP convention? Seems more improbable each passing Tuesday. Sorry Lincoln, Trump just carjacked your party

 jasper76 wrote:
I wonder when the "Liberals and Conservatives United Against Trump" bus starts rolling? Maybe it will take a Trump primary victory before the David Brookes of the world start endorsing Clinton.

Check this endorsement image from 538:

Kinda neato...

See Trump? He's uncategorized!

Does anyone still seriously think we are going to a brokered GOP convention? Seems more improbable each passing Tuesday. Sorry Lincoln, Trump just carjacked your party

It's more possible than you think...

Trump needed 70 delegates last night (all of AZ, and proportional wins at UT) to "be on track" for the minimum requirement for the convention of 1237 delegates. He only got AZ (58 delegates) as Cruz triggered the take-all clause for UT.

According to 538, he's only on track at 96% of the needed delegates.

He's close, and there's plenty of winners-takes-all states left that could theoretically help Trump get the 1st ballot needed delegates. The bad news for Trump, many of those are closed primary/caucus... which has been his weakness so far...

Wisconsin is the state to watch out for next.

Well, one can only hope.

Looking through that pile of amoebas is like looking at a political graveyard. In the end, this circus will have probably destroyed a lot of political careers. I'm a bit verklempt.

I hope it goes to a convention just so I can see it play out, but it's hard to see how that could possibly be a positive for the GOP's run for office. Either Trump comes out as the nominee, or a non-Trump. The non-Trump would then go into the fight against the opposition already as an illegitimate nominee in the minds of millions of voters. Don't get me wrong, if I was a GOP delegate and could hit the reset button on the primary results, I would do it in a heartbeat even if it meant losing the general election.

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, one can only hope.

Looking through that pile of amoebas is like looking at a political graveyard. In the end, this circus will have probably destroyed a lot of political careers. I'm a bit verklempt.

I hope it goes to a convention just so I can see it play out, but it's hard to see how that could possibly be a positive for the GOP's run for office. Either Trump comes out as the nominee, or a non-Trump. The non-Trump would then go into the fight against the opposition already as an illegitimate nominee in the minds of millions of voters. Don't get me wrong, if I was a GOP delegate and could hit the reset button on the primary results, I would do it in a heartbeat even if it meant losing the general election.

Well, that solves the problem now but doesn't stop it from happening again.

They could be in the exact same position in four years time.

Eh... that's the rules of the convention.

If you don't get the 1237 delegates in the first round, then it's a mulligan and the delegates get together to re-vote for a candidate.

It's happened before in the past, and one of the more famous one, was none other than Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield.

You know, I'm honestly a bit miffed that they didn't just cut 3 delegates across the states and make it 1234 as the required delegate count. For some reason 1237 just seems wrong

 whembly wrote:
Eh... that's the rules of the convention.

If you don't get the 1237 delegates in the first round, then it's a mulligan and the delegates get together to re-vote for a candidate.

It's happened before in the past, and one of the more famous one, was none other than Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield.

Should Trump be denied the nomination in a convention, all the historical precedent in the world won't erase the fact that in the current climate millions of people who already feel disenfranchised will feel that they have been shammed yet again by the party elite and will not regard the candidate as having been nominated legitimately. That would be a hard cross to bear going into the general election in this day and age.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, one can only hope.

Looking through that pile of amoebas is like looking at a political graveyard. In the end, this circus will have probably destroyed a lot of political careers. I'm a bit verklempt.

I hope it goes to a convention just so I can see it play out, but it's hard to see how that could possibly be a positive for the GOP's run for office. Either Trump comes out as the nominee, or a non-Trump. The non-Trump would then go into the fight against the opposition already as an illegitimate nominee in the minds of millions of voters. Don't get me wrong, if I was a GOP delegate and could hit the reset button on the primary results, I would do it in a heartbeat even if it meant losing the general election.

Well, that solves the problem now but doesn't stop it from happening again.

They could be in the exact same position in four years time.

I think there is alot of cult of personality going on with Trump (as there was with Obama). If he should win the general election, sure the GOP is with him for life. But if he doesn't win the Presidency this go around, I'm inclined to believe he wouldn't do well in the primaries in 4 years.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Eh... that's the rules of the convention.

If you don't get the 1237 delegates in the first round, then it's a mulligan and the delegates get together to re-vote for a candidate.

It's happened before in the past, and one of the more famous one, was none other than Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield.

Should Trump be denied the nomination in a convention, all the historical precedent in the world won't erase the fact that in the current climate millions of people who already feel disenfranchised will feel that they have been shammed yet again by the party elite and will not regard the candidate as having been nominated legitimately. That would be a hard cross to bear going into the general election in this day and age.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Well, one can only hope.

Looking through that pile of amoebas is like looking at a political graveyard. In the end, this circus will have probably destroyed a lot of political careers. I'm a bit verklempt.

I hope it goes to a convention just so I can see it play out, but it's hard to see how that could possibly be a positive for the GOP's run for office. Either Trump comes out as the nominee, or a non-Trump. The non-Trump would then go into the fight against the opposition already as an illegitimate nominee in the minds of millions of voters. Don't get me wrong, if I was a GOP delegate and could hit the reset button on the primary results, I would do it in a heartbeat even if it meant losing the general election.

Well, that solves the problem now but doesn't stop it from happening again.

They could be in the exact same position in four years time.

I think there is alot of cult of personality going on with Trump (as there was with Obama). If he should win the general election, sure the GOP is with him for life. But if he doesn't win the Presidency this go around, I'm inclined to believe he wouldn't do well in the primaries in 4 years.

There's no reason for Trump supporters to feel disenfranchised if Trump isn't the nominee because he failed to win 1237 or more delegates. If Trump hits the magic number of delegates he wins the first floor vote at the convention and becomes the nominee. If he doesn't then it's up for grabs. A plurality of Republican primary voters have chosen Not Trump so far. He's averaging less than 50% of the vote. If Trump doesn't get 1237 delegates and doesn't win a plurality of the popular vote it's not unreasonable for him to lose the nomination.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Eh... that's the rules of the convention.

If you don't get the 1237 delegates in the first round, then it's a mulligan and the delegates get together to re-vote for a candidate.

It's happened before in the past, and one of the more famous one, was none other than Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield.

Should Trump be denied the nomination in a convention, all the historical precedent in the world won't erase the fact that in the current climate millions of people who already feel disenfranchised will feel that they have been shammed yet again by the party elite and will not regard the candidate as having been nominated legitimately. That would be a hard cross to bear going into the general election in this day and age.

The majority of the Republican primary/caucus votes went to the non-Trump candidates.

Furthermore, if the Sander voters and Trump voters stays home during a Clinton vs. non-Trump General Election... Hillary's in trouble.

I suspect that the reality of the political process and what Drumpf's mouthbreathers believe are two wildly different things.

Prestor Jon wrote:

There's no reason for Trump supporters to feel disenfranchised if Trump isn't the nominee because he failed to win 1237 or more delegates. If Trump hits the magic number of delegates he wins the first floor vote at the convention and becomes the nominee. If he doesn't then it's up for grabs. A plurality of Republican primary voters have chosen Not Trump so far. He's averaging less than 50% of the vote. If Trump doesn't get 1237 delegates and doesn't win a plurality of the popular vote it's not unreasonable for him to lose the nomination.

You mean majority of popular vote... not plurality.

Trump being the frontrunner means he has at least the plurality of the delegates so far... but, he has yet to hit the majority and he's tracking a shade short of that 1237 needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 feeder wrote:
I suspect that the reality of the political process and what Drumpf's mouthbreathers believe are two wildly different things.

True... only have to look at the PUMAS in the aftermath of the Obama vs Clinton primary.

Whether Sanders voters show up in the election, and what Sanders decides to do or not do with his clout, I think is highly interesting. He shouldn't be going after Clinton at all anymore if he believe that she'd be a better President than Trump. I think the best thing for Clinton to do is to just offer him the Vice Presidency, if she hasn't already done so, and assuming she doesn't have some firepower like Colin Powell or Bill Gates or some gak. In my opinion Sanders has developed somewhat of a mandate for the VP position if it's something he wants. Sanders in Vice Presidential debates means more Larry David. I'm all for it.

I think you guys underestimate how p'd off a good deal of people will be if Trump loses due to party machinations. Sanders people only stay home if he takes the lowroad and/or the youth can't be bothered to get out of bed, which is always a problem and certainly a big possibility if Sanders is not in the ticket and Clinton otherwise can't break through to youth voters.

The youth not being bothered to get out of bed is what has doomed Sanders so far, so why should it be any different in the future? Clinton will never pick him for the VP slot. She doesn't need to. VT is safe, and other possible nominees can being a lot more. Evan Bayh, Corey Booker, hell, put Elizabeth Warren on and she will have more youth voters than Sanders would net her.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
. Evan Bayh, Corey Booker, hell, put Elizabeth Warren on and she will have more youth voters than Sanders would net her.

I would definitely vote for a ticket with Corey Booker on it. I've seen him speak on numerous occasions, various interviews, etc. and he's one of the few people up there in Washington that, when he opens his mouth, my BS alarm doesn't go off. In one of his more recent interviews, he said flat out that he reaches across the aisle, and has even worked with the anti-christ himself (Cruz) on a few bills.

I have no idea who Evan Bayh is, but I suspect with that last name, it may draw a bit of negative attention, no matter what he looks like. It simply looks a bit too foreign for Republicans to NOT go after.

I seem to recall Warren stating flat out that she would not take any offers for the VP, though to be fair, she could very well have been responding only to a potential Sanders offering.

 jasper76 wrote:


I think you guys underestimate how p'd off a good deal of people will be if Trump loses due to party machinations.

Good.

As I Republican, I'm ready for my party to fething implode. Let all of the fundamentalist, evangelicals, and nut jobs either have the party (I'll likely go Libertarian) or they follow Trump to his Trump Party.

Totes sick of the gak.

 jmurph wrote:
Or, perhaps, anyone who can make it close to winning the presidency in the current environment is going to be pretty unlikeable.

I like the wordplay I’m not sure it produces an alternative view that really works, though.

I mean, it’s not hard to conceptualise how a combination of circumstances and the political environment can lead to the public getting bitter and cynical, and automatically disliking anyone who gets close to the presidency. But I can’t figure out what kind of system would emerge that would mean in order to get close to the presidency a person had to be inherently unlikeable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Well, under the Bush Administration the whole nation didn't sink into the sea, just New Orleans.

Let's not reduce the impact that Government policy has on people's lives. For some people during these administrations, their worlds did change dramatically with things like Medicare part D, Iraq/Afghan Wars, Obamacare, and a host of other smaller lower profile things. As a whole the nation keeps going, but individuals and regions are greatly impacted by Government Policy decisions. it is unavoidable really. To them, the decision is life-altering.

Politics matter way more than most people give it credit for.

Yeah, government matters. I work in government, I don’t do it because I believe my work is pointless. I’ve experienced bad government in my own country, and I’ve seen some incredibly bad government in other countries. I’m not saying government doesn’t matter. I’m saying getting extremely worked up and fearful is a bad idea.

When you buy in to that kind of fear you lose context and critical decision making. That’s why I’m saying. Some people have spent so many years, possibly even two decades by now, believing everything that they heard about Hillary Clinton, that they think Donald fething Trump might actually be the better option. That’s barking mad.

The simple truth is that most mainstream politicians are… okay. I don’t agree with much that Jeb Bush thought about, well, anything, but at worst he would have been a toned down version of GW Bush. And I don’t like Kasich running a con job where he pretends to be moderate, but if he got in to office we’d see something similar to his time as governor – tight budgets with a neo-liberal foundation.

On the other side of the coin, Clinton is someone I just don’t like on a personal level, but as a president we’d see basically a continuation of the Obama administration. And I think Sanders’ platform is impractical enough to be bordering on dishonest, but I know that if he won his actual changes would be minor and most likely positive in most areas.

But we’ve gotten so whipped up getting all scared about those kinds of people that we can’t tell see the difference between politicians we don’t like, and actual lunatics who represent a real and lasting danger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I wonder when the "Liberals and Conservatives United Against Trump" bus starts rolling? Maybe it will take a Trump primary victory before the David Brookes of the world start endorsing Clinton.

I'm very nostalgic for the days when David Brooks had any kind of influence on conservative politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
There's no reason for Trump supporters to feel disenfranchised if Trump isn't the nominee because he failed to win 1237 or more delegates. If Trump hits the magic number of delegates he wins the first floor vote at the convention and becomes the nominee. If he doesn't then it's up for grabs. A plurality of Republican primary voters have chosen Not Trump so far. He's averaging less than 50% of the vote. If Trump doesn't get 1237 delegates and doesn't win a plurality of the popular vote it's not unreasonable for him to lose the nomination.

There are Sanders supporters complaining that it’s unfair and rigged because Clinton has all the superdelegates, when the plain and obvious reality is that Clinton is well ahead in pledged delegates and vote count. People are inclined to see systems as unfair if the result goes against them, no matter what the rules or reality says.

And in the case of Trump supporters, we’re talking about watching their candidate reach the convention clear delegate lead and in touch of the majority needed for an auto-win. If the convention then nominates someone else, it’s pretty clear there’ll be a lot of outrage.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
. Evan Bayh, Corey Booker, hell, put Elizabeth Warren on and she will have more youth voters than Sanders would net her.

I would definitely vote for a ticket with Corey Booker on it. I've seen him speak on numerous occasions, various interviews, etc. and he's one of the few people up there in Washington that, when he opens his mouth, my BS alarm doesn't go off. In one of his more recent interviews, he said flat out that he reaches across the aisle, and has even worked with the anti-christ himself (Cruz) on a few bills.

I have no idea who Evan Bayh is, but I suspect with that last name, it may draw a bit of negative attention, no matter what he looks like. It simply looks a bit too foreign for Republicans to NOT go after.

I seem to recall Warren stating flat out that she would not take any offers for the VP, though to be fair, she could very well have been responding only to a potential Sanders offering.

Bayh was Indiana's governor for ten years and then a senator for ten more. He looks like a basketball coach from Indiana. About as Midwest American as one can get. Plus, I think Clinton has had a secret crush on him for the past twenty years.

 whembly wrote:
Furthermore, if the Sander voters and Trump voters stays home during a Clinton vs. non-Trump General Election... Hillary's in trouble.

There's a lot of internet talk about Sanders supporters, but we have to remember the Howard Dean lesson of how much internet hype matters (it doesn't).

And there's a lot of talk about Clinton's negative favourability among the general population. But that misses two important facts, the first and simplest is that Trump and Cruz have much stronger negative popularity. The second is that overall popularity doesn't really matter, what matters is how much your base likes you. Because whether Republicans like or dislike a Democrat doesn't really matter, they won't be voting for the other guy anyway.

You know the general rule that Democrats have a bigger base, but it's more likely to stay home on election day. I think that rule can be extrapolated, that in order to get the Democratic base out, they need to either really like their guy, or really dislike the other guy. 2008 is an clearest example of the former, Obama got 69m votes. 2004 is an interesting example of the latter, while it was in a losing effort, 59m people turned out to vote for the charisma vacuum John Kerry.

Clinton is certainly nothing like Obama in terms of likeability among the Democratic base, but she’s also not that far off. +35 to +40 is perfectly fine. But when the other side is likely to put up either Trump or Cruz*, it’s also likely that Clinton could see a lot of the base get out to vote against the other side.


*And remember Cruz has no declared already he won’t be moving back to the centre in general, his theory is all about making sure every conservative gets out to vote by appealing to them as much as possible, with no interest in how that might play to the centre, or energise the Democratic base.

 sebster wrote:
*And remember Cruz has no declared already he won’t be moving back to the centre in general, his theory is all about making sure every conservative gets out to vote by appealing to them as much as possible, with no interest in how that might play to the centre, or energise the Democratic base.

I'd argue that's been the downfall of the Republicans in the last two general elections.

 whembly wrote:
Kinda neato...

The best thing in that article is a link that describes what 'clothespin' means in political ciricles. Not because that's a term people really need to understand, but because it links to a 2000 article from libertarian William Safire that's almost perfect in it's dramatic irony.

"Bush's lower taxation for all will better preserve prosperity, and Gore's deathbed conversion on campaign finance reform will better preserve democracy, if he can drop his class warfare long enough to make a deal with Republicans."

"...Bush confidently surrounds himself with more independent-minded people."

"push his (Bush's) disinclination to nation-build into outright isolationism"

"Partisanship sharpens debate and opens the possibility of grand compromise. "

How'd all those assumptions work out for you, Mr Safire?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
I'd argue that's been the downfall of the Republicans in the last two general elections.

Yeah, a winning Republican right now needs to say enough to ensure the conservative base will turn out for election, but say as little as possible to energise the larger democratic base. It’s a tough balancing act. Bush did it masterfully in 2000. Compassionate conservatism is one of the best conceived platforms in recent years, because sold conservative to the base, while emphasising compassionate to everyone else.

Cruz doesn’t even want to play that game. And Trump is doing this whole other thing, that I don’t people have even figured out yet. I don’t think Trump has figured it out yet.

 sebster wrote:

"push his (Bush's) disinclination to nation-build into outright isolationism"

To be slightly fair, Bush did run on a relatively isolationist platform, unfortunately he was surrounded by people who stood to get richer, and a number of people decided to "accidentally" put some airplanes into some American buildings.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
To be slightly fair, Bush did run on a relatively isolationist platform, unfortunately he was surrounded by people who stood to get richer, and a number of people decided to "accidentally" put some airplanes into some American buildings.

Absolutely. I’m not saying Safire was misleading us, or that he’d been misled by Bush. Bush reacted to events as they happened, in ways that even Bush probably wouldn’t have predicted of himself before the events.

And that’s the reality that makes the level of certainty with which people talk about politics or any reasonably complex event so comical years later. End of the day people are picking one candidate that they don’t know half as well as they think they do, who is about to react to 4 years of events that no-one can predict ahead of time. And yet we’re so certain that we know what we’re doing.

And it’s not just about candidates. That line from Safire about heated partisan politics producing better debate, that’s my favourite wrong thing. Because I would have believed that in 2000, but now it’s so clearly wrong.

To be fair, I think that depends on the nature of partisanship. I can envision a partisan divide that does produce better debate, but it requires a divide based on ideological grounds that are based in facts.

There is at least one party in the US that has this approach to facts;



It's one thing to debate what facts mean. It's another to build your platform around the conception they don't exist.